The usefulness of haloes

It seems to be one of the eternal questions that never seem to be settled to anyone’s satisfaction: Should basic research be funded and, if so, to what extent. Or should research be objective-driven, carefully planned and mapped a priori so as to have maximum impact? To a public hungry for immediate results the answer is obvious. Of course, they would say. The best research would be that which has a direct impact on human lives by providing employment, alleviating poverty, improving the economy, etc., etc. To which those who would defend basic research would reply, it is extremely difficult to predict when something would be useful. As a recent Scientific American blog post (http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/degrees-of-freedom/2011/07/19/when-maths-turns-out-to-be-useful/) points out, examples abound, even in the most esoteric fields of pure mathematics, of research that was initially thought to be useless but turned out to be eminently useful. 

Even given such leeway, the most ardent supporters of curiosity-based research would still argue that the generation of pure knowledge is valuable for its own sake — that the spirit of human exploration should never be suppressed. To which most people would say, what a waste of money that we cannot afford in a tight economy. And so it goes… a never-ending cycle that rather mimics the debate on the chicken and the egg. 

It sounds kind of strange that, long as this debate has been going on, there seems to be one aspect that has been forgotten. Basic research can often be useful but not in the long-term, hundreds-of-years sense that is usually cited by its proponents. Basic research, good sound fundamental research, can be very useful in establishing technological leadership. The United States still basks in the aura of being the only nation to put men on the moon and to operate a reusable spacecraft. And this shared prestige does not even have to be expensive. Imagine the prestige the Philippines would gain if one of our mathematicians suddenly came up with a more elegant proof for Fermat’s last theorem.

The potential halo effect is one that any businessman would understand. Even in the advertising industry, that most short-term thinking of all industries, they produce commercials that are, in the vernacular, “pang-award.” These “pang-award” commercials are those that are produced for short-term airing, with full knowledge that they are not as effective as the crass low-brow commercials that air more frequently, but are artistic and thoughtful enough to be given awards by international bodies. Very useful for selling one’s services to new clients. Credibility and prestige, something every business wants… The petroleum giants seem to understand this very well, witness all of the projects (and advertising) devoted to project themselves as friends of the environment. It is strange therefore that business leaders seem to forget this important facet of their own businesses whenever they are consulted in the drafting of a research agenda. Perhaps they have been pre-programmed by the very fact that the institution is drafting a research agenda or by the prevailing culture that adores the marvelous wealth created by great inventions.

What good sound fundamental research establishes is the credibility that we, as a nation, can do things with precision and accuracy; that we can report and communicate our results effectively without bias or overselling and that we can behave with integrity in dealing with our scientific counterparts. While less tangible than a program that directly provides jobs to 100 massage therapists, the national self-confidence that we gain from doing tough research that requires the stretching of the research infrastructure would be invaluable. If Professor Juan de la Cruz can do it, then so can we! It is in this sense that basic research must be conducted even if we take the viewpoint that all research must be useful.

Does this mean that all research be driven solely by the curiosity of the researcher?   No, what the author is advocating is a healthy balance between the more objective driven research, like development of a dengue vaccine, and those that may pay off in the long run both in terms of perhaps long-term economic payoffs or even the less tangible benefits of a shared national pride and prestige. Should research agendas be done away with altogether? No, it makes sense for a business or a specialized research agency. How does one strike this balance? As the legendary CEO Jack Welch replied to his junior executives when asked on how he balances short-term and long-term objectives: “Welcome to the job!” It is a difficult task but it is clear, however, that to establish a research agenda for a large or national-level institution and require that all research be required to fit that agenda would be folly. Setting priorities is one thing, declaring exclusivity is another.

Diversity of thought is something every democracy and educational institution should value highly. Not just political thought but in every aspect of the human mind: cultural, artistic, religious and scientific. It is these small threads of thought that weave the fabric of our society. 

* * *

Luis F. Razon is a full professor of chemical engineering at De La Salle University. Razon obtained his bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering (magna cum laude) from De La Salle University and his MS and Ph.D. in chemical engineering from the University of Notre Dame, Indiana. His papers on the dynamics and stability of chemically reacting systems are some of the best-cited papers in the chemical engineering literature. He served in the food industry for 14 years, launching several important new products for a major international nutritional products company. He returned to the academe in 2001 and is pursuing research in chemical reactor engineering, alternative fuels and life-cycle assessment. E-mail at [email protected].