‘Useful’ research

It is not unusual during research planning workshops that the desire is expressed that the research be “useful.” It is indeed difficult to argue against such a desire. With the exception of some pure mathematicians, every researcher wants his/her research to be “useful.” The problem arises when the word has to be defined. Is research useful when it makes gobs of money? Is it useful if it cures cancer, tuberculosis or the common cold? Is it useful if it provides employment to thousands of Filipinos? Surely yes and often the desire is expressed that it be all of the above and be done immediately. And who would not want such a glorious achievement. The unfortunate thing however is that real progress in science and technological development is incremental or brick-by-brick. Good research builds on previous research and succeeding research makes use of the present research. 

Many of the better institutions recognize the step-by-step and collegial nature of research and have tried to measure the quality of a research publication by the number of citations it gets. That is, the number of succeeding publications that use a paper as a reference is a measure of how useful it has been to other researchers. While this is an improvement, it is still imperfect. Fashionable topics are rewarded; truly creative research usually does not get citations for a long time and there is the possibility that a splashy failure like the cold fusion fiasco would generate thousands of citations, albeit negative. Then, there are the cases which are in a gray area.  Here are some to ponder on.

Case 1. A couple of European physicians investigate whether the delivery of a drug is more consistent if the drug is delivered as a syrup or a suspension. The doctors find out that syrups are better and publish the seemingly trivial results in a small journal. Through an online database, a pharmaceutical firm locates the paper and uses it to back up advertising claims for its syrup product. The product’s advertising survives challenge after challenge from its competitors because the European paper represented testing by an independent disinterested party. Was this research useful?

Case 2. A chemist obtains the heat of solution of ammonium sulfate to an exquisite degree of accuracy and precision. The experiments are so accurate and well-documented that there is no need to repeat it and the data is included in many reference handbooks and databases. It receives only three or four citations but the data itself is used by many workers in industry who use it to improve their processes. Ammonium sulfate is such a common chemical and the end product could have been fertilizers, pharmaceuticals, plastics or munitions. Was this research useful?

Case 3.  In 1996, Nikolaus Foidl, an Austrian agricultural researcher working in Nicaragua, investigates an obscure plant called jatropha curcas and suggests that it may be a good source of fuel since it yields plenty of oil and grows well in poor soil. The idea takes hold and since then almost a thousand papers have been listed in Scopus as touching on the subject. Many developing world governments launch programs to develop jatropha planting and fuel development programs. Unfortunately, expected yields are not achieved and almost as quickly many of the jatropha programs are dropped. Was the research on jatropha useful?

So, which of these cases produced research that was useful? This author would say “yes, all of the above” although, by the measures used by many institutions. Case 1 would have been considered too trivial and probably never got any citations; Case 2 would not have gotten a sufficient number of citations; and Case 3 would have been judged an enormous waste of money.

When judging a research program, either in retrospect or more importantly in terms of potential, it is best to look at it as a glass that is half-full rather than half-empty. All too often, there is an implicit desire for the Messiah discovery that saves us all and anything else is considered useless. Each of the cases mentioned above were useful in their own way. Case 1 did result in some (modest) economic gain and Case 2 was useful to many technologists although in a way impossible to measure. Case 3 is useful although in a latent manner. We now know what needs to be done in order to make jatropha viable or to find other plants to provide biofuel. The possible tragedy with Case 3 is that the government programs may have been dropped too early.

The common mistake of many research planners is to think of a research program like it is some kind of marketing or PR campaign — an expense that yields immediately measurable results. Anyone who expects economic growth from a two-year research program, no matter how large, is bound to be disappointed. Instead, good research should be thought of as unrealized or unliquidated assets — not very useful at the moment but full of potential and readily available for those with the patience, imagination, intelligence and foresight to make use of them. One hopes that we can find research leaders with these qualities.

* * *

Luis F. Razon is a full professor of Chemical Engineering in De La Salle University. After obtaining his Ph.D. from the University of Notre Dame and a short stint at teaching, he spent 14 years in the food and pharmaceutical industry.  After returning to the academe, he has engaged in research in chemical reactor engineering and biofuels. He is part of the Sustainability Studies Program of the Commission of Higher Education (CHED) Private Higher Education Network (PHERNet). While most of his citations come from more recent work, his 1987 paper titled “Multiplicities and Instabilities in Chemically Reacting Systems” with Roger Schmitz just got two more citations and so is, in a way, still useful. E-mail him at [email protected].