This blog post examines why ‘use-inspired basic science’ is important through Pasteur’s Quadrant and explores the impact of this approach on scientific research.
Pasteur’s Quadrant, or the Pasteur Quadrant, signifies ‘use-inspired basic science’—basic research that leans neither solely toward pure academic inquiry nor purely toward practical application. When scientific research is divided into two axes—basic and applied—and represented as four quadrants, Edison falls into ‘research for application,’ while Bohr is classified as ‘pure basic research.’ Pasteur, however, is categorized as ‘basic research for utilization.’ While studying cell theory, he simultaneously pursued concrete applications, researching fermentation techniques and diseases. The author of this book advocates moving beyond the dichotomous view of science as ‘basic science’ versus ‘applied science,’ instead championing ‘use-inspired basic science’ like Pasteur’s. Furthermore, the author contends that policies for modern science must be determined within this paradigm. To this end, the book clarifies the roles of scientists, the research evaluation system, and the state to ensure that ‘utilization-oriented basic science’ flourishes and becomes established.
First, the author argues that active intervention by scientists is necessary. To achieve this, it is essential to understand ‘why basic science struggles in the market.’ While grasping the scientific significance of specialized, concrete research requires extensive scientific background knowledge, recognizing its practical significance is relatively easier. Consequently, a significant knowledge asymmetry arises between researchers and those who practically support research. The author argues that the closer research is to basic science, the greater the difficulty in understanding it, making scientists’ active involvement essential in defining societal needs. For example, Pasteur highlighted the necessity of public health by connecting the seemingly unrelated concept of public health to ‘milk,’ thereby emphasizing its social need. Furthermore, the chemist Mario Molina is said to have tirelessly worked to alert the world to the dangers of ozone layer depletion, drawing global attention to this issue.
The author also stresses the importance of the peer review system. Research should be evaluated not by third parties completely unrelated to the field, but by peers conducting research in similar areas. These peers should assess not only the scientific significance of the research but also the benefits it brings to society, thereby guiding the allocation of research funding. However, the book acknowledges that this system has unavoidable limitations. Researchers tend to favor established methods over novel approaches, renowned researchers over unknown ones, and large institutions over small ones. To overcome these limitations, a movement has emerged to rename ‘peer review’ as ‘merit review’. Despite these drawbacks, the author argues that the benefits of the peer review system are substantial.
The role of the state is also explicitly addressed. Surrounding the NSF, a national agency supporting pure basic science, debates over whether the NSF should also support applied science have persisted since the 1950s. Concerns existed that maintaining curiosity-driven and academic-focused research from the NSF’s early days was essential, and that if applied science became a target for support, basic science would ultimately be displaced. The author clarifies that this debate stems from the ‘postwar paradigm’ prevalent throughout society, which divides science into basic and applied categories. The state’s role, he argues, is to pursue basic research aimed at utilization, ensuring it does not degenerate into vague applied research, and to establish such research. He also emphasizes the importance of ensuring strategic research does not lose its academic purity.
This book, rather than explaining why ‘application-oriented basic science’ is necessary, focuses on how to establish it, based on the premise that it is needed. However, as the author’s reasons for supporting ‘application-oriented basic science’ emerge during the discussion, I wish to argue that a social paradigm pursuing ‘application-oriented basic science’ should not emerge.
Pursuing ‘application-oriented basic science’ risks distorting the government’s role in scientific research. This book advocates limiting research funding sources to the government and establishing a structure where the government supports research based on its perceived utility. However, both limiting funding sources to the government and the government prioritizing research utility can lead to contradictions. The author discusses only the state as the source of research funding, excluding research grants operated by corporations. Yet in reality, corporations influence academia with research funding comparable to the government, and some fields operate solely on corporate support without government grants. For instance, at Seoul National University in Korea, private corporate research funding reaches 1.5 times the scale of funding from state institutions.
The author portrays the situation in this book as if insufficient support is given to applied science because the government prioritizes respect for basic science. However, in reality, private support from corporations is ample for applied science, while basic science is actually surviving on government research funding. Since corporations are inherently profit-driven entities pursuing utility, they naturally support applied-oriented basic science where utility is readily apparent. Therefore, respecting and supporting basic science fields where immediate utility is not visible should be the government’s role. If the government also pursues the utility that research might bring, it risks becoming just another large corporation seeking ‘profit’. Therefore, rather than seeking utility in basic science, the government needs to respect the intrinsic value of the discipline.
Furthermore, the criteria for the ‘utilization-oriented basic science’ advocated by the author throughout the book remain unclear. ‘Application-oriented basic research’ can be viewed as a discipline existing between basic research and applied research. However, no clear criteria are presented to distinguish it from basic science and applied science. In particular, the criteria for recognizing basic research with a certain level of practicality as ‘application-oriented basic science’ are inevitably highly subjective. Establishing standardized criteria is difficult, and the process of classifying research and allocating funding could generate significant controversy. Ultimately, whether any given research falls under basic or applied science is likely a matter of placement along a spectrum. In this sense, the book’s central argument for developing ‘application-oriented basic science’ risks appearing as nothing more than a vague, idealistic claim.
Finally, if only ‘application-oriented basic science’ is emphasized, there is a risk of undermining the autonomy of basic science. The author’s argument is not that we should recognize and invigorate ‘application-oriented basic science’ alongside basic science, but rather that all basic science research must become application-oriented. However, this harbors significant side effects. Fundamentally, it is difficult to assess the short-term utility of basic science. Moreover, the more fundamental the research is to the foundation of a discipline, the harder it is to find immediate utility. Therefore, it is undesirable to judge fundamental disciplines, which form the cornerstone of all applied fields, solely by their utility.
