Blue-skies research and 'unknown unknowns'
 |
| There's a lot out there. What do we not know we don't know? |
Why should we bother with science that has no practical
application? Since science is funded by a public which is becoming more
engaged, why should they fund certain research projects? The debate over blue-skies
research is a popular dinner table discussion for scientists and non-scientists
alike. I know scientists who think blue-skies research is superfluous and “offers
the researchers money to pursue their hobby”, but equally I know non-scientists
who see blue-skies, or curiosity-led research as absolutely essential to our
progress as a species.
NASA is usually mentioned in any half-decent discussion
about the importance of blue-skies research because, actually, what was the point of flying to a lump of rock
sitting a few hundred-thousand kilometres away from our (mostly comfortable)
planet? “Well,” say Defenders of the Blue Sky. “Teflon and Velcro are NASA
spinoffs, invented during The Space Race”. Not so .
Although, NASA did play important roles
in the invention of memory foam, magnetic resonance imaging,
electrolyte-replenishing drinks and art restoration techniques (!?). Clearly,
important inventions can be discovered as “spinoffs” to a greater project, but
is this the only reason blue-skies research should be allowed to continue?
I will refer to the words of a member of the last Bush administration
to back this argument up (a sentence I never thought I’d write).
“[T]here are known knowns; there are things we know that we know.
There are known unknowns; that is to say there are things that, we now know we don't know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don't know.”
Donald Rumsfeld, 2002.
There are known unknowns; that is to say there are things that, we now know we don't know.
But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don't know.”
Donald Rumsfeld, 2002.
Known knowns: these could include Newton’s law of
gravitational attraction, or Darwin’s theory of evolution via natural
selection, or that the set of all real rational numbers is a countable infinity. There’s
also known unknowns: for science these could include a complete description of
the chemical processes within a cancerous cell, or the best way to build a
polymer that can act as a solar cell, or whether there is life on Mars – we know
we don’t know these things yet.
Finally, there are unknown unknowns. I can’t give any
examples of these because I don’t know of any – they’re unknown. The only way we will discover these unknown unknowns is to
first understand that we don’t know something. Creative, curiosity-led research
seems, to me, a brilliant way for gallantly stepping into the black patches at
the back of the cave of Nature and admitting that we have no idea what we will
find. We could find gold. We could find a monstrous Cthullu. We could find an
object with the same intrinsic interest as a soggy custard cream. These are all
metaphors of course, however, the point is that because there are some (and
possibly many) things that we don’t know we don’t know, we could find anything.
This discovery will most likely be something we have never
thought of – and could lead to paradigm shifts of the career-and-life-changing
variety. Look at what has happened in the last 150 years since Rutherford
scattered some particles of radiation by a thin gold foil! We now have the best
understanding of matter yet: this has led to world-changing developments in
pharmaceuticals, non-stick surfaces, electronics, water-proof materials,
moisturising creams, food stuffs, insulating material, building materials… the
list is pretty endless. While the initial experiment looked abstract and “not
immediately useful”, it has yielded items which are so useful, we can almost
not live without them anymore.
I think money should be wisely spent on research. However, I
also believe that science should not be constrained by only having to produce
useful technologies, medical interventions or ideas. Of course some of the science we do today will lack a short-term,
economical gain, but we literally
have no idea what technologies might be made possible tomorrow by the
discoveries made today.
Comments