Basic Research: Rhetoric and Reality

Statsråd for forskning og høyere utdanning, Tora Aasland, deltok 5. september i et møte i Vitenskapsakademiet.  Her diskuterte hun den langsiktige grunnleggende forskningen med flere anerkjente internasjonale forskere. Til stede var blant annet Barack Obamas science envoy og editor in chief of Science magazine Bruce Alberts og nobelprisvinner i medisin 2001 Tim Hunt.

Arrangement: Møte i Vitenskapsakademiet, 5. september 2011 

[Må sjekkes mot fremføring]

Thank you for the invitation to speak here today. I am happy to have been given this opportunity to reflect upon our engagement in long term research in the company of such eminent guests.

As the Norwegians among you are well aware, we are in the middle of our Year of Science – confer the logo – our first step in the process towards the new White Paper on research scheduled for spring 2013. The first university in Norway, the University of Oslo, was established in 1811. And in celebration of its 200th anniversary, the Government arranges numerous conferences and debates around the country – both through cooperation between our many sector ministries with research responsibilities, but also through cooperation with other interested organizations and institutions.

Our aim is to ask the large questions, perhaps the controversial questions, and perhaps the questions to which we do not yet have policy solutions. Our aim is to put science and research policy higher on the public agenda, and we work hard to reach also groups that are not already convinced. Our aim is to speak not  only to the  converted.   

Can We Trust Science?

Let me give you an example. Together with the University of Oslo and the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters we arrange a two-day conference, open for all, in November, where we ask the basic question: Can we trust science? 

The Norwegian context for this initiative is several recent media debates on issues related to trust in science. We have had our versions of “Climategate”, “Himalayagate”, “Africagate” etc. in connection with the fourth IPCC report, and climate skeptics’ views were widely broadcasted and debated. In the spring of 2010 a blazing nature-nurture debate followed a TV series called Brainwash. Social scientists were sharply criticized for their lack of interest in –and knowledge of – biology, evolutionary psychology etc. The chasm  between the two cultures was bemoaned, and postmodern conceptions of gender were heavily criticized. During the last weeks of November, our largest national newspaper, Aftenposten, revealed several incidents of ministries trying to influence, or downright change, the conclusions in contract researchers’ reports.

Thankfully the researchers in question stood firm, and I immediately took several measures to ensure further the principle of academic freedom also for commissioned researchers working outside of universities. This included a formal call upon my Government colleagues to respect and value academic freedom and make sure that this important principle is appreciated and respected also by their civil servants.

These debates all raise questions that directly affect the public trust in the pillars of science such as the peer review system, researchers’ ethics and the honest dissemination of results. And I don’t want to leave these issues to tabloid newspapers and dodgy Internet sites. The Government – and I – want to address them head on ourselves.

Rhetoric and reality

Through this introduction I hope to have sketched some of the background for my title and for my topic here today. The rhetoric of science matters. The media rhetoric on science matters – because rhetoric matters to reality. To speak is to act, as we learned from philosopher John Austin in the sixties.

To a politician rhetoric matters perhaps more than to most. Politics is the business of making things happen. And we make things happen through communication. We have to engage, move, and convince our voters, in order to achieve our goals and move the limits for what is possible.  

Thus I will speak here today first about the rhetoric of basic research and potential effects thereof. Second, I will present the Government’s line in these matters, and third, I will use our work with the new biotech strategy as a case to illustrate some consequences of the foregoing reflections and considerations.   

Francis Bacon

With regard to the distinction between what is now called basic and applied research Francis Bacon put matters clearly when he stated that “It is an error of special note that the industry bestowed upon experiments hath presently, upon first access into the business, seized upon some designed operation; I mean sought after Experiments of Use and not Experiments of Light and Discovery.” Bacon distinguished between research that increased our power over nature and research that increased our understanding of nature, and he argued that the power came from the understanding.    

Few question Bacon’s reasoning as such, and neither do I. Most would agree that what is done for use, should so far as possible be done in the light of understanding. But still I would like to quote Nobel laureate in medicine Peter Medawar when he says that: “Unhappily, Bacon’s distinction is not the one we now make when we differentiate between basic and applied research. The notion of purity has somehow been superimposed upon it. […] The distinction is […] now between […] polite and rude learning, between the laudably useless and the vulgarly applied, the free and the intellectually compromised, the poetic and the mundane.” 

These dichotomies are recognizable also from Norwegian research policy debates. In my opinion they represent an unfortunate and elitist kind of rhetoric, bound to loose the not yet converted in a Norwegian political climate with anti-elitist, populist parties on the move. And because rhetoric matters, I have stated quite clearly that I think we ought to tone down the outmoded distinction between basic and applied research.  

The Government aims at an optimal interplay between different, but equal, forms of research. These various forms are, each in their way, instrumental to the continued welfare and wellbeing not only for the people of Norway, but for the planet.   

One thing is that the term basic research does not fit very well with the actual activities going on in our universities. I quote researchers Gulbrandsen and Kyvik from June 2010: ”[…] academic staff members are able to use the research categories when describing own activities, [but] most carry out a seemingly complex mix of different R & D”. More important is that today the historically determined distinction between basic and applied research lends itself too easily to reasoning that in my opinion does not serve long-term research very well.  

We need to get away from what seems to be widespread perceptions that some kinds of research – thematically defined technological research and short-term natural and social science – is more useful than other kinds of research – and as such ought to be considered a better investment. Perceptions like these limit our political scope of action where long-term, thematically undefined research is concerned, and with respect to research in reflective disciplines like history or philosophy.  

Thus, to use the words of Medawar again, we ought not to make a special virtue of encouraging pure research, in cancer institutes or institutes devoted to rheumatism or allergies, or wherever. “[T]here is nothing virtuous about it! We encourage pure research in these situations because we know no other way to go around it. [My italics.] If we knew a direct pathway leading to the solution of the clinical problem of rheumatoid arthritis (uttales rumatoid arthraitis), can anyone seriously believe that we should not take it?”  

My point is simply that we have no choice as to whether we should invest more in long-term research or not. If we are to solve the global challenges that lie ahead of us, we just have to. This is my main message to the voters. And to get this message across most effectively – also to the not yet converted – I think we do wise to tone down the distracting notions of purity, virtue and “laudable uselessness” that have historically been connotations of the concept basic research.  

Goals for Norwegian Research

This is the reasoning behind the Government’s goals for Norwegian research. We have strived for better consistency between rhetoric and reality. We have tried to visualize that it is the interplay between different, but equal, forms of research that bring the world forward. And last but not least, through our goals we have initiated a successful shift in the science policy debate from input to output. If we compare today’s debate with the stale and barren 3 % debate from some years ago, I am pretty confident that no one wishes themselves back to the early 2000s.  

Let me underline that what I have just said has got nothing to do with a lack of will to invest in long-term research. Between 65 and 70 % of the public spending on R & D in our universities is allocated directly to the institutions as block funds for the institutions to prioritize themselves. And  since this government won office in 2005, research has been a high priority. From 2001 to 2008, research funding in Norway in average has increased 6,8 %, with public spending accounting for the highest growth. This growth is higher than in any of our neighboring Nordic countries. We have also increased the spending on open schemes in the Research Council of Norway.  

The New Biotech Strategy

I will end this talk by reference to our work with the new biotech strategy. Let me stress that this is still work in progress, so the figure is not to be perceived as final.  

Three generic technologies, ICT, nanotechnology and biotechnology are, as we speak, rapidly transforming our society. This raises opportunities for new innovations, better healthcare and new tools in the struggle to fight poverty and climate change. But they also raise serious moral and ethical questions. The Government are now in the process of  developing national strategies on how to best address the new emerging technologies in a sustainable way.  

And in the context of today’s meeting: One of the important questions is just how to strike the right balance between short-term and long-term investment, between the known and the unknown.  

On the one hand cluster theorists, together with several business historians, quite correctly claim that today’s structure of industry sets limits to the potential for future business in a region. Based on their research they find the belief that new industry can be created from new technology alone, to be overrated. This applies to the new knowledge based industries especially, where heavy investment in research is necessary before profitable businesses can be developed.  

Furthermore they point to the fact that early technological development does not always lead to the greatest commercial success, summarized in the quip: Why be on the bleeding edge when you can be on the leading edge?  

On the other hand we find the whole history of science and its long-term proponents, speaking equally correctly for the unknown potential of general purpose technology. Who in their right mind could possibly have foreseen the digital revolution? And even less, in the 1850s-70s, have predicted that Maxwell’s equations should prove so vital to its development?  

Thus we suggest a biotech strategy in line with our overall research policy, a strategy intended to stimulate the fruitful interplay between blue skies and our already established national advantages. More specifically this means a strategy that departs from acknowledged needs in the field:

-          The international orientation of Norwegian biotechnology has to increase

-          Levels of cooperation between industry and researchers are not satisfactory.

-          Biotechnology is not used enough in Norwegian industry

-          Ethical perspectives and dialogues with the public have not been sufficiently attended to. 

 

Thus we suggest a strategy with four overarching priorities:

1.    Ethics and safety

2.    International cooperation

3.    Innovation

4.    Knowledge and infrastructure

 

And with four thematic priorities:

1.    Marine resources

2.    Land based food and biomass production

3.    Industrial processes and products

4.    Health

In this manner we hope to achieve a healthy balance between the need to build upon national strengths and advantages and the need to stimulate and secure a robust science base from which we will one day draw solutions to questions not yet asked.   

 

Year of Science

I’ll end here with the logo for our Year of Science again and with a quote from another Nobel laureate. I think, if I remember correctly – and please correct me if I’m mixing things up – that it was Ernest Rutherford who once was asked the question: ”What is the point of basic research?” To which he replied: ”Well, what is the point of a newborn child?”   

Thank you for your attention.