Viewpoint

"Fundamental" Research

A significant groundswell is developing within the scientific community for a government-sponsored mechanism to fund "fundamental" research. Yet the debate is occurring without a broadly agreed definition for "fundamental" research. The need for an agreed definition is central to development of a consensus based on mutual understanding.

There will never be an exclusive definition of "fundamental" research, for at least five definitions are in common currency:

• research that attempts to elucidate the underlying nature of observed or deduced phenomena with the aim of developing predictive theories or basic laws about relationships (the definition I personally subscribe to)
• long-term research
• research with no particular application in mind
• research which is chosen by the practitioner rather than established by external priority-setting
• pejorative research (i.e. my "pure/basic/blue sky" research compared to the applied rubbish you do)

These definitions tend to be invoked at various stages in any debate on control of science and technology resources. It is instructive to analyse how they may relate to the use of the Public Good Science Fund (PGSF), the Non-Specific Output Funds (NSOF) of the Crown Research Institutes and associated retained earnings (NPAT), and the Vote:Education funding of the universities. (See table below.)

Although often asserted otherwise, the Public Good Science Fund does cover research into basic understanding of observed or deduced phenomena, although generally not for the purpose of elucidating such understandings, but because they prove a means to an end. The Public Good Science Fund also includes longer-term research, especially as five-year research programmes are now to be considered. PGSF-funded research should have some end use ultimately in mind (relevance), and is judged by external committee/peer-review. Receipt of PGSF-funding has yet to be widely seen as providing a superior moral position.

The CRI's NSOF and retained earnings (NPAT) can cover basic research, but is unlikely to be long-term funded, rather being used as a seed fund to develop research to the stage where other entities may take over the funding. Being undertaken by CRIs it is likely to have some end use in mind, and it is always agency-led. It is unlikely to confer moral superiority as NSOF is at times used to rescue failed PGSF bids.

Vote:Education research funds are, it is claimed, often used for basic research. Perhaps this is less so in New Zealand, but across the world universities and large company laboratories appear to be the fount of much wisdom aimed at elucidating the underlying nature of events. Such research is often long-term in that it can be the life-time specialisation of an individual don.

It is claimed that much of this research has no obvious application, and while less so of New Zealand compared to overseas universities, this is probably more true of Vote:Education funds than any other public science and technology funds in this country. Vote:Education funds are invariably agency-led, unless they are being used to cross-subsidise contract research. These funds can confer an assumed moral superiority.

This analysis demonstrates that NSOF plus retained earnings and Vote:Education funds have more in common than either do with the Public Good Science Fund. The key areas that distinguish these two groupings are:

• the degree of ultimate application for the research judged at the moment of conception
• the identity of those who judge the research worthy of funding (external to the agency providing the research)

In conclusion then, for constructive dialogue any debate on "fundamental" research should first seek to define what is meant by the term. The definition agreed should relate to the purpose of the debate -- is the debate on the duration of research? its potential usefulness to society? the degree to which researchers control the application of the funds?

A useful place to start would be the relationship between the purpose for the PGSF and its output 36, classified as "fundamental" research. The above analysis suggests that the use of "fundamental" is a misnomer for "hard to categorise into the other outputs" research, a definition that falls outside those used for "fundamental" in this article.

Dr Andrew West has been involved in the development of New Zealand science policy.