What Do We Expect From Basic Science?

Evolution of the models of basic science development

The ratio between the fundamental and applied components of scientific research is reflected in a number of models that have evolved from a simple linear connection to the matrix structure (Stokes, 1997). For a long time, a linear model of the interaction of science and technology could be considered adequate to the actual situation in science. This model is schematically represented as a chain consisting of three links:

Basic (pure) science → applied science / technology → growth of society welfare.

It is believed that the idea of this model belongs to Francis Bacon. The alternative model was put forward by Adam Smith. This model is also linear in form, but in content it is the opposite of the previous one, because it supposes the market is main driving force for technology development and the source of technological innovation is the previous technology.

According to (Stokes, 1997), in the matrix model scientific research is distinguished by two criteria: the search for fundamental knowledge and the possibility of immediate use (Figure 01 ). The names of researchers in each quadrant, whose results are widely recognized, confirm that modern society needs all kinds of scientific research.

See Full Size >

The non-market nature of basic science results is a weighty argument in justifying the mandatory and powerful participation of the state in the advancement of basic science. Llewellyn Smith (1997) substantiated this position, saying that financing of fundamental science is important for society as a whole, but it does not represent an interest for any individual investor. Those who make fundamental discoveries, as a rule, do not benefit from this, because the laws of nature can’t be protected by patent law, applied use takes a long time and is unpredictable, and the cultural and educational values of science do not bring direct profits.

However, according to dos Remedios (2006), "currently, governments around the world seem to believe that an emphasis on applied research will lead to national wealth creation. In so doing they are undervaluing the many and real contributions made by fundamental research to that same end. Most scientists believe that the best way to enhance the capacity of a nation is to create a strong applied research culture based a vibrant and dynamic fundamental research foundation.” (para. 2)

Einhaäupl (2001) mentioned that politicians and officials “increasingly emphasize the need for “programmatic”, “mission-oriented” or “strategic” fundamental research distinguished from pure basic research”, and analyzing why the basic research becomes the subject of political discussion, he pointed to the following facts:

• the growth of the scientific system in all developed countries, which took place in the last decades of the 20th - early 21st century, combined with increased costs for basic research and an increase in the deficit of public funds;

• the lack of a linear innovation process from basic research to new products and economic growth (Why is basic research a matter of political discussion?, para. 4).

On the one hand, basic research has partly become an indicator of prestige: only powerful, sustainable economies can afford to carry out costly research, and results obtained without any future payback guarantees can be considered as their potential. On the other hand, the interests of economic development of each country, including the most economically powerful ones, require ensuring the effectiveness of public investment, and when the investment in basic science is based not only on state but also on private financing, the demand for returns becomes decisive. In accordance with modern provisions of financial management, investment in fundamental science is high risky, and this dictates high requirements for future incomes.

Since the bygone hopes that basic research will linearly contribute to technological innovation and economic growth have not been realized, there is a risk of a reduction in the funding of basic science and, as a consequence, a threat to the generation of innovations.

This aspiration should be countered by legislative support of basic research. In working out the means of such support, it is necessary to take into account not only the direct impact of basic research on economic growth, but also that by financing basic research, the state, as well as private business:

• creates the basis for improving the health, safety and quality of life of people;

• creates jobs both directly for persons engaged in research, and indirectly for persons involved in the innovation process;

• supports industry, supplying it with orders and stimulating the increase of its competitiveness due to the use of new technologies, equipment and materials necessary to create an appropriate material base for scientific research;

• enhances national security by ensuring not only the development of weapons and means of defense, but also the following use of advanced achievements for civilian purposes;

• forms highly qualified personnel for all spheres of life and activity – scientists, engineers, medics, workers, etc.;

• promotes development of regions and increase the stability of the local economies, as scientific centers attract highly skilled labor and innovative business.

Model of basic science development in the Russian Federation

From the standpoint of the above provisions, the current Russian model for the development of basic science can be analyzed. Currently, the main documents that determine the position of basic science in Russian Federation are a) Programme of Basic Scientific Research in the Russian Federation for the Long-term Period (2013-2020) (On the Programme of Fundamental Scientific Researches in the Russian Federation for the Long-Term Period (2013-2020), 2012) , b) Strategy for Scientific and Technological Development of the Russian Federation (On the Strategy for Scientific and Technological Development of the Russian Federation, 2016. The Programme determines the amount and the structure of funding for basic research. The Strategy (On the Strategy for Scientific and Technological Development of the Russian Federation, 2016) includes “the basic research, predetermined by the internal logic of the science development, ensuring the readiness of the country to the great challenges that have not yet been manifested and not received wide public recognition, and the possibility of timely assessment of the risks caused by scientific and technological development” (para. 21) into the number of priority directions of scientific and technological development and this can be considered a recognition of the leading role of fundamental research.

In the first edition of the Programme (On the Programme of Fundamental Scientific Researches in the Russian Federation for the Long-Term Period (2013-2020), 2012, General provisions, para. 3), the following thesis was formulated: "Only by creating a competitive economy, it is possible to achieve the competitiveness of science". However, in the edition adopted in 2015 (On Amendments to the Programme of Fundamental Research in the Russian Federation for a Long-Term Period (2013–2020), 2015, Changes, para. b), the phrase took a different view: "only by creating a competitive science, the competitiveness of the economy can be achieved." This "chicken-and-egg story" clearly shows that the discussion on the interaction between science, including the basic, and the economy is far from complete.

The Programme recognizes the fundamental science as an integral part of the cultural and intellectual potential of the country hence the logic of its development should not be determined only by economy. However, in general, the provisions of the Programme are formulated in the context of a linear model of the relation between science and technology. This can be observed in the statement, that fundamental science should provide, along with obtaining new knowledge about nature, man and society, conducting basic research on priority applied areas, and in formulating one of the objectives of the Programme as "improving the effectiveness of research and its use for development prospective technologies necessary for the implementation of strategic objectives of the country's socio-economic development" (On the Programme of Fundamental Scientific Researches in the Russian Federation for the Long-Term Period (2013-2020), 2012, Objective of the Programme, para. 1). This vision of the role of basic science is relatively well corresponding with studies of the "Pasteur" quadrant of the Stokes’ model - basic research focused on the use of its results, but hardly leaves room for research in the spirit of Carl Linné aimed at streamlining and systematizing knowledge, or of Nils Bohr, aimed at investigation of nature, far ahead of the technology.

Fig. 2 shows the dynamics of financing of fundamental and applied research from the budget of Russian Federation. It can be seen that the amount of funding on applied research is growing at a faster pace and in recent years more than double exceeds the expenditures on basic science.

In Fig. 3 , it is possible to trace the dynamics of internal operating expenditures on science, which include the costs for wages, insurance contributions to extra-budgetary funds and noncapital material costs regardless the financing sources. It can be noted that the amount of federal budget's expenditures on basic research (Fig. 2) is close to the internal operating expenditures on fundamental science (Fig. 3), whereas for applied research, internal operating expenditures exceed the budget financing more than twice. This allows concluding that

• extra-budgetary sources of financing of basic science are extremely insignificant, which confirms the lack of interest of the business in the basic results that can’t be transformed into benefits on the short-term horizon;

• capital expenditures on the basic research are negligible. The latter fact makes to doubt, that the research belonging to the "Pasteur" quadrant has opportunities to be carried out, because the experimental work requires complex and expensive equipment. Only desk studies can be carried out without large capital expenditures, but their results usually have no chance of an instant transformation into advanced technology.

See Full Size >

See Full Size >

The Programme (On the Programme of Fundamental Scientific Researches in the Russian Federation for the Long-Term Period (2013-2020), 2012) sets indicators of publications, engaging the young scientists, patent activity and funding. Target dynamics of these indicators is shown in the Table 01 .

Much attention given to bibliometric indicators for measuring and evaluating the development of science, including basic, corresponds to modern world trends. In general, such criteria coincide with the interests of basic science, which require a broad communication and information space, rather than keeping the advanced achievements which promise the commercial success in secret or immediate legal protecting of such results. Mindeli & Chernykh (2016) revealed that in the period 2000 to 2006, when the world faced with a boom of scientific publications, a clear trend developed in the Russian Federation was the outstripping growth in the financing of applied research with a weakly expressed positive dynamics in the financing of basic research and a proportional relation has established between the proportion of basic science funding of and the proportion of Russian scientific publications in the world. It may be concluded that basic research carried out in the country are relatively more productive, noticeable and significant from the standpoint of the world science than applied research.

The patentability of the results of the basic research, as already mentioned, is limited. Certainly, the historical example of Louis Pasteur who patented the results of his research can be inspiring for many generations of scientists, but it should be remembered that Louis Pasteur proposed free acquaintance with the invented technology to all interested persons and explained patent by the aspiration to prevent the commercial gain of dishonest people (Yanovskaya, 1960). As known, Jonas Salk, who developed a vaccine against poliomyelitis, answering the question of who owns the patent, said “There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?” (Palmer, 2014, para. 1).

The indicator of the proportion of researchers under the age of 40 should be connected with the educational and scientific activity of the higher school (universities), which should provide research stuff for other scientific organizations and also be leading scientific centers. Statistics ((Federal State Statistics Service) show that, since the beginning of the 21st century, the proportion of research and development stuff recruited immediately after graduating the university did not exceed 14.5% (Table 02 ). Undoubtedly, a powerful source of scientific stuff, hiding under the heading "other", which gives 68% to 73% of the new stuff of scientific organizations, as well as the reasons of the personnel dismiss, requires detailed study. According to statistics up to 2/3 of the total dismiss occurs at own will and about 1/3 leaves scientific organizations for the "other" reasons. The decline in the number of scientific stuff was overcome in 2013, but replenishment of earlier losses at a new level of quality remains up to date and topical.

Rodionov, Kushneva, & Rudskaya (2013), describing directions of the university's development aimed to increase its competitiveness and ensure high positions in international rankings, do not call the conduct of basic scientific research among the obvious priority. However, all mentioned areas "increasing the intellectual potential of the university, engaging of the leading scientists and teachers and increasing academic mobility, supporting young scientists, international promotion of the scientific and innovation results, and finally encouraging teachers and researchers to increase the effectiveness of their activity” (Rodionov, Kushneva, & Rudskaya, 2013, p. 97) ¬ may and should be considered in relation to the development of basic science. Also, should be taken into account that the image of scientific quality in the universities may be developed only on specific institutional levels (Akopova & Chernyavskaya, 2014).

Taking in to account that the main independent result of basic research is scientific discovery it should be recalled that in the Russian Federation the authorship of scientific discovery is not protected by law (Civil Code of the Russian Federation, 1994, Article 1259). In a number of countries, a state system for identifying and centralizing the scientific discoveries registration has been established, aimed at securing the author's and state priority. Such a system creates favorable conditions for the wide use of scientific discoveries, stimulates the interest of scientists in basic scientific research, the development of scientific creativity. The implementation of such a system in the Russian Federation, in our opinion, would be more in line with the interests of basic science. It will contribute to the achievement of a Programme’s general aim ¬ restoring the leading positions of Russian basic science in the world - more productively than the targets in terms of registered patents.