<100 subscribers
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Originally published via martinholub.com.
Background: In the Netherlands, it is customary to include ‘propositions’, essentially opinionated statements defended alongside one’s doctoral work. In this post series, I am outlining the arguments supporting my propositions.
Proposition #8: Need-driven research is a better investment of taxpayers money than research driven by curiosity.
Science and research are cornerstones of human progress. They enable innovations that shape our lives, help address pressing challenges and expand our understanding of Nature and the Universe. Albert Einstein once said,
“The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing.”
Carl Sagan echoed:
“Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.”
Even before them, Edwin Hubble described the exploratory nature of scientific discovery:
“Equipped with his five senses, man explores the universe around him and calls the adventure Science.”
These quotes remind us of the awe-inspiring power of discovery and the curiosity that often drives it.
However, how we focus this curiosity drive matters.
Research exists on a spectrum, from purely exploratory endeavors to highly application-driven projects. For example, consider the discovery of the electron, which began as basic inquiry into the nature of electricity. Similarly, the discovery of X-rays, came about as Röntgen experimented with bombarding diverse materials with high-speed electrical current. On the other end of the spectrum, applied research has given us technologies that we cannot imagine our lives without - smartphones, therapeutics, and agricultural pest control.
All points on this spectrum are valuable and have their place in the broader ecosystem of discovery. Basic, curiosity-driven research often forms the foundation for future applications. Similarly, applied research directly addresses the needs of society. This diversity in approach has historically driven human progress.
Yet, given the reality of limited resources and ongoing challenges such as climate change, geopolitical conflicts, pandemics, and food insecurity, the question needs to be asked: How should we prioritize our investments in research? I argue that in the modern era, need-driven research leads to more overall positive impact than curiosity-driven research does. Even when pursuing fundamental science, grounding the inquiry in well-defined needs helps to ensure relevance.
Below I describe what issues I see with ’curiosity-driven’ research, and give arguments for, and examples of, adopting more ‘need-based’ approaches.
Curiosity-driven research is often portrayed as the heart and soul of scientific inquiry. It conjures romantic images of exploration, where passionate researchers chase the unknown. While this narrative is appealing, it is a mix of fantasy and reality, and needs closer scrutiny.
Free scientific exploration was transformative throughout history and up to the early 20th century. Throughout this period nearly everything looked at through a scientific lens led to a discovery. An apple falling from a tree? Bang, science. A light ray passing through a jug of water? More science. Wilhelm Röntgen stumbled upon X-rays when observing unexpected fluorescence in darkened laboratory. Up until fairly recently, research continued resembling fumbling in the dark, metaphorically and literally.
This legacy helps to understand the overwhelmingly positive image of curiosity in research. Many of the quotes that shape our cultural narrative about science come from this period of groundbreaking discovery.
One problem with the term “curiosity-driven research” is that it is a misnomer. What does it really mean? If a researcher tells you their work is “curiosity-driven,” do you know anything specific about their focus or methodology? Probably not. I believe that curiosity, in some form, is a driver of all research, whether investigating the mechanisms of photosynthesis or engineering a more efficient solar panel.
Another important issue with the curiosity-labeling is that it can justify just about anything. Because curiosity is viewed as an inherently virtuous motivation, it can overshadow important considerations around research, like ethics, societal impact, and practical relevance. By the time the implications become evident, the genie may be out of the bottle. Consider the examples below.
As one example, in the Manhattan Project, scientific curiosity about nuclear fission ultimately led to the development of the atomic bomb. While the theoretical groundwork was undeniably impressive, its application in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not. Similarly, studies into pathogenic organisms, even if motivated by neutral aim of understanding them better, pose biorisks. The Soviet Union’s biological warfare division, for example, weaponized anthrax and smallpox. In 2002, the same year that Europe and Australia were declared polio-free, American scientists synthesized this virus in an academic laboratory in New York City, spurring conversations on ethics of such research.
Another example is the ongoing development of advanced surveillance technologies. While curiosity about artificial intelligence and data processing drives these innovations, their misuse for tracking of individuals and manipulation of public opinion are tangible societal risks. In these cases, curiosity unchecked by ethical and value-based frameworks can lead to development of technologies that exacerbate, not address, important challenges.
In the end, curiosity is neither inherently good nor bad. Its impact depends entirely on how it is channeled. Below, I suggest that channeling the curiosity towards important needs can generate impactful research directions.
In the previous section, I cautioned against using “curiosity-driven” as a blanket label for research, while recognizing curiosity as a valuable personal quality and driver of discovery. Here I argue that individuals and funders can maximize the impact of scientific curiosity by channeling it into need-driven, sometimes referred to also as use-inspired or mission-based, research.
Need-driven research focuses on addressing specific goals and challenges. It operates at the intersection of scientific exploration and societal relevance, channeling the natural curiosity of scientists into areas where breakthroughs are likely to have transformative impacts.
One of the most renowned organizations embodying this approach is the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Founded in 1958 by President Eisenhower, DARPA’s mission is to identify and fund projects at the intersection of frontier scientific capability and societal and national need. Its results speak for themselves: DARPA has played pivotal roles in the development of mRNA vaccines, weather satellites, and even the internet.
Similarly, the UK-based Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB) is an example of need-driven research in fundamental science. A recent Nature article highlighted the lab’s strategic focus on “identifying new and important scientific questions in uncrowded fields that require pioneering technologies to answer them.” By creating the tools necessary to open new fields, LMB has catalyzed breakthroughs across molecular biology. The authors of the article concluded with a “call for the LMB’s strategy to be used as a blueprint for other institutes focusing on fundamental research.”
Number of modern organizations are also embracing the need-driven philosophy. ARIA, Welcome Leap, and recently the Novo Nordisk Foundation are some examples.
Claus Felby, Senior Vice President for Biotech at the Novo Nordisk Foundation, announced the shift of foundation’s focus on ‘mission-based’ research in late 2024. He highlighted the limitations of traditional research models, pointing out that three-year funding cycles simply cannot deliver on complex and urgent problems like climate change. Felby advocated for mission-based research, which emphasizes prioritization and critical evaluation of scientific pursuits. He underscored this point: “If the path you are following has a very low chance of succeeding […] then you should stop.”
Welcome Leap offers a model that I particularly like, based on a framework described in Donald Stokes’s 1997 book, Pasteur’s Quadrant. Stokes formulated the “Theory of Breakthroughs” and categorized research pursuits along two dimensions: whether they have high basic science content and whether they drive application (see figure below). He identified the most impactful research by being high along both dimensions. This lands the research into so-called “use-inspired basic research” or “Pasteur’s” quadrant. This is of course the legacy of Louis Pasteur, whose work on vaccination, fermentation, and pasteurization transformed both science and public health.
By aligning the thrill of discovery with societal impact, need-driven research avoids the pitfalls of curiosity for curiosity’s sake. It encourages accountability, and demands prioritization, and a willingness to pivot when a path proves unproductive. In this way, it offers the best of both worlds: the excitement of exploration and the contribution to addressing important challenges. As we go on to tackle these complex global challenges, embracing more need-driven research isn’t just a strategic choice; it’s a necessity. Through organizations like DARPA, LMB, and Welcome Leap, we have valuable pioneering examples of how to do this in practice.
Originally published via martinholub.com.
Background: In the Netherlands, it is customary to include ‘propositions’, essentially opinionated statements defended alongside one’s doctoral work. In this post series, I am outlining the arguments supporting my propositions.
Proposition #8: Need-driven research is a better investment of taxpayers money than research driven by curiosity.
Science and research are cornerstones of human progress. They enable innovations that shape our lives, help address pressing challenges and expand our understanding of Nature and the Universe. Albert Einstein once said,
“The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing.”
Carl Sagan echoed:
“Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.”
Even before them, Edwin Hubble described the exploratory nature of scientific discovery:
“Equipped with his five senses, man explores the universe around him and calls the adventure Science.”
These quotes remind us of the awe-inspiring power of discovery and the curiosity that often drives it.
However, how we focus this curiosity drive matters.
Research exists on a spectrum, from purely exploratory endeavors to highly application-driven projects. For example, consider the discovery of the electron, which began as basic inquiry into the nature of electricity. Similarly, the discovery of X-rays, came about as Röntgen experimented with bombarding diverse materials with high-speed electrical current. On the other end of the spectrum, applied research has given us technologies that we cannot imagine our lives without - smartphones, therapeutics, and agricultural pest control.
All points on this spectrum are valuable and have their place in the broader ecosystem of discovery. Basic, curiosity-driven research often forms the foundation for future applications. Similarly, applied research directly addresses the needs of society. This diversity in approach has historically driven human progress.
Yet, given the reality of limited resources and ongoing challenges such as climate change, geopolitical conflicts, pandemics, and food insecurity, the question needs to be asked: How should we prioritize our investments in research? I argue that in the modern era, need-driven research leads to more overall positive impact than curiosity-driven research does. Even when pursuing fundamental science, grounding the inquiry in well-defined needs helps to ensure relevance.
Below I describe what issues I see with ’curiosity-driven’ research, and give arguments for, and examples of, adopting more ‘need-based’ approaches.
Curiosity-driven research is often portrayed as the heart and soul of scientific inquiry. It conjures romantic images of exploration, where passionate researchers chase the unknown. While this narrative is appealing, it is a mix of fantasy and reality, and needs closer scrutiny.
Free scientific exploration was transformative throughout history and up to the early 20th century. Throughout this period nearly everything looked at through a scientific lens led to a discovery. An apple falling from a tree? Bang, science. A light ray passing through a jug of water? More science. Wilhelm Röntgen stumbled upon X-rays when observing unexpected fluorescence in darkened laboratory. Up until fairly recently, research continued resembling fumbling in the dark, metaphorically and literally.
This legacy helps to understand the overwhelmingly positive image of curiosity in research. Many of the quotes that shape our cultural narrative about science come from this period of groundbreaking discovery.
One problem with the term “curiosity-driven research” is that it is a misnomer. What does it really mean? If a researcher tells you their work is “curiosity-driven,” do you know anything specific about their focus or methodology? Probably not. I believe that curiosity, in some form, is a driver of all research, whether investigating the mechanisms of photosynthesis or engineering a more efficient solar panel.
Another important issue with the curiosity-labeling is that it can justify just about anything. Because curiosity is viewed as an inherently virtuous motivation, it can overshadow important considerations around research, like ethics, societal impact, and practical relevance. By the time the implications become evident, the genie may be out of the bottle. Consider the examples below.
As one example, in the Manhattan Project, scientific curiosity about nuclear fission ultimately led to the development of the atomic bomb. While the theoretical groundwork was undeniably impressive, its application in Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not. Similarly, studies into pathogenic organisms, even if motivated by neutral aim of understanding them better, pose biorisks. The Soviet Union’s biological warfare division, for example, weaponized anthrax and smallpox. In 2002, the same year that Europe and Australia were declared polio-free, American scientists synthesized this virus in an academic laboratory in New York City, spurring conversations on ethics of such research.
Another example is the ongoing development of advanced surveillance technologies. While curiosity about artificial intelligence and data processing drives these innovations, their misuse for tracking of individuals and manipulation of public opinion are tangible societal risks. In these cases, curiosity unchecked by ethical and value-based frameworks can lead to development of technologies that exacerbate, not address, important challenges.
In the end, curiosity is neither inherently good nor bad. Its impact depends entirely on how it is channeled. Below, I suggest that channeling the curiosity towards important needs can generate impactful research directions.
In the previous section, I cautioned against using “curiosity-driven” as a blanket label for research, while recognizing curiosity as a valuable personal quality and driver of discovery. Here I argue that individuals and funders can maximize the impact of scientific curiosity by channeling it into need-driven, sometimes referred to also as use-inspired or mission-based, research.
Need-driven research focuses on addressing specific goals and challenges. It operates at the intersection of scientific exploration and societal relevance, channeling the natural curiosity of scientists into areas where breakthroughs are likely to have transformative impacts.
One of the most renowned organizations embodying this approach is the U.S. Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). Founded in 1958 by President Eisenhower, DARPA’s mission is to identify and fund projects at the intersection of frontier scientific capability and societal and national need. Its results speak for themselves: DARPA has played pivotal roles in the development of mRNA vaccines, weather satellites, and even the internet.
Similarly, the UK-based Laboratory of Molecular Biology (LMB) is an example of need-driven research in fundamental science. A recent Nature article highlighted the lab’s strategic focus on “identifying new and important scientific questions in uncrowded fields that require pioneering technologies to answer them.” By creating the tools necessary to open new fields, LMB has catalyzed breakthroughs across molecular biology. The authors of the article concluded with a “call for the LMB’s strategy to be used as a blueprint for other institutes focusing on fundamental research.”
Number of modern organizations are also embracing the need-driven philosophy. ARIA, Welcome Leap, and recently the Novo Nordisk Foundation are some examples.
Claus Felby, Senior Vice President for Biotech at the Novo Nordisk Foundation, announced the shift of foundation’s focus on ‘mission-based’ research in late 2024. He highlighted the limitations of traditional research models, pointing out that three-year funding cycles simply cannot deliver on complex and urgent problems like climate change. Felby advocated for mission-based research, which emphasizes prioritization and critical evaluation of scientific pursuits. He underscored this point: “If the path you are following has a very low chance of succeeding […] then you should stop.”
Welcome Leap offers a model that I particularly like, based on a framework described in Donald Stokes’s 1997 book, Pasteur’s Quadrant. Stokes formulated the “Theory of Breakthroughs” and categorized research pursuits along two dimensions: whether they have high basic science content and whether they drive application (see figure below). He identified the most impactful research by being high along both dimensions. This lands the research into so-called “use-inspired basic research” or “Pasteur’s” quadrant. This is of course the legacy of Louis Pasteur, whose work on vaccination, fermentation, and pasteurization transformed both science and public health.
By aligning the thrill of discovery with societal impact, need-driven research avoids the pitfalls of curiosity for curiosity’s sake. It encourages accountability, and demands prioritization, and a willingness to pivot when a path proves unproductive. In this way, it offers the best of both worlds: the excitement of exploration and the contribution to addressing important challenges. As we go on to tackle these complex global challenges, embracing more need-driven research isn’t just a strategic choice; it’s a necessity. Through organizations like DARPA, LMB, and Welcome Leap, we have valuable pioneering examples of how to do this in practice.
scimartin ('JJ')
scimartin ('JJ')
No comments yet