On Sept. 7, Joe Kloc wrote on The Daily Dot about the New York Times’ coverage of recent revelations about the National Security Agency’s (NSA) access to online banking records.
“If in fact the agency did crack the encryption schemes used for bank transactions (the Times is somewhat unclear on that point), then in doing so it may have solved a math problem that has long puzzled cryptographers and number theorists alike,” wrote Kloc.
Revelations about the NSA’s interest our bank accounts and transaction records aside, I was initially concerned most about the NSA’s potential mathematical breakthrough and its reluctance to come forth with the discovery. I guess on the surface level, I’d consider myself to be numbered among the opensource, collaborative school. I’m of the mind that scientific knowledge represents a body of infinitely valuable, collective objective knowledge, to which anyone in quest of the truth should have access. The realist in me argues otherwise. He argues that some research needs to remain confidential for security reasons. The sad fact of the world is that not everyone pursues certain knowledge solely for the sake of truth.
Which brings me, in a roundabout way, to a fundamental dilemma all research scientists face with regards to their work: basic or applied research?
Basic research is more intellectually appealing; it represents the scientific method at its best. A question is posed, tested, and when the results don’t hold up with the hypothesis, the scientist is often pointed in an entirely new direction. The intellectual path is not straight; it meanders across the discipline, perhaps even transcending disciplines. Basic science research is, in its purest form, an intellectual adventure.
Applied research is a different beast. It is more constricted, focused, and goal-driven and as a result, better funded. Funders want to see money well spent, and they want results they can see. But it’s this results-oriented thinking that can become dangerous at times. On April 28 of this year, Jeffrey Mervis of Science Insider, a branch of Science, wrote in an article entitled “ U.S. Lawmaker Proposes New Criteria for Choosing NSF Grants” that “the new chair of the House of Representatives science committee has drafted a bill that, in effect, would replace peer review at the National Science Foundation (NSF) with a set of funding criteria chosen by Congress.”
The article continues on to discuss reactions in the scientific and political community to this bold and misguided move. Many of the criticisms revolved around the problems that arise when the scientific review process currently in place at the NSF are replaced by criteria chosen by Congress (which would undoubtedly be politically motivated).
And now I want to bring this full circle back to the NSA and my discomfort with its purported mathematical breakthroughs. Their existence is irrelevant to me; the thought of the public reaction to the New York Times reporting makes me shudder. If the public sees the results of mathematical and scientific research being used as a tool for repression, there will be a negative knee-jerk response to the thought of publicly funded research.
According to several professors and researchers I’ve talked with, public funding is far easier to come by for applied science research; funding for basic science research trickles down as a byproduct or an afterthought. But what happens when the public perception of applied science research becomes negative? The public funding will thin out and dry up, especially if Congress dictates the funding criteria. And when funding for applied science research goes, so does any and all funding for basic science research. Looking at a short list of benefits basic science research has brought us (modern genetics, the theory of evolution, general relativity, and it goes on), I’d say that losing basic science research funding is bad news for the scientific endeavor, and I think, for the human endeavor.
But Middlebury and institutions like it can act as buffers against public opinion and funding shortages. When all other funding dries up, Middlebury can use its considerable resources to continue to continue to fund the scientific research that goes on within the walls of McCardell Bicentennial Hall. It must, for the sake of science and for the sake of humanity.
[audio mp3="http://middleburycampus.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Henriques-Column-Recording.mp3"][/audio]
Listen to WILL HENRIQUES read his column.
