Pure vs. Applied Science - Why BOTH are necessary!

This is a blog post I wrote back in August of 2005. Every so often this question comes up, especially when budget cuts to science are proposed by the politicians. With the current administration, numerous cuts to many areas of STEM research are proposed.

Questions: What is the point of pure science? Which is better, pure or applied science?

A summer science research course I teach always has many good discussions about analysis techniques, the scientific method, and specific areas of research. A topic that always makes an appearance is the debate over what type of research is more valuable, pure or applied. In particular, the class debate peaks when we travel out to Fermilab to visit some of the facilities and labs. Prior to that visit, classes are normally close to split over which is more vital to the progress of science and the U.S. lead world research.

Pure science research is that work which is done in the pursuit of new knowledge. Scientists working in this type of research don’t necessarily have any ideas in mind about applications of their work. They may be testing an existing theory, they may have a new experimental technique they want to try, or they may literally stumble accidentally into a new area of discovery (many of the great discoveries in history occurred by accident, such as X-rays and penicillin). Encompassed in this realm is a good deal of theoretical research, such as those who are working on quantum mechanics, superstrings, theoretical cosmology, and many others.
Applied science research is that which is geared towards applications of knowledge and concrete results that are useful for specific purposes. Engineering is certainly an application of knowledge for finding practical solutions to specific problems. Research into instrumentation, new inventions, and new processes that may improve productivity in industry, as well as medical research geared towards the production of new drugs, are obvious examples of this type of research.

Fermilab, for example, is a mammoth device that is used almost entirely for pure research in particle physics. Scientists look for new forms of matter, study fundamental forces between particles, test theories such as the Standard Model, and test new types of instrumentation. As an ideal example of ‘big’ science, students are wide-eyed when told the power bill is something like $10,000 per hour and that operating budgets, paid for by taxpayer dollars, run in the hundreds of millions (not to mention the billions of dollars that have been spent over the years to build the facility and the main experiments). My question for them is: Is it worth it?
On the surface, most people can think of better uses of billions of dollars. I’ve been asked countless times how scientists can justify the costs of facilities like Fermilab or the price-tag associated with sending another space probe to Mars. What about cures for cancer? New energy sources? Better sources of food that can be grown and used by the third-world? Are these not more important areas of study, especially when the answer to the question, “What good is a top quark?” is “I cannot think of a single application.” Certainly politicians are faced with such questions, and rightly so. We absolutely need to ask these questions and find priorities for limited resources and funding.

Politicians, of course, prefer applied science research. They would love to be able to go to their constituents with news of a new invention or discovery that will make life better, and, gee, since I supported the funding of the research I deserve to be re-elected. While applied science almost always wins out in a class vote of which is more important, as I argue in my last posting that thinking in terms of absolutes can limit progress, my conclusion is BOTH are absolutely essential for the progress of science as well as maintaining our status as a superpower.

Pure science keeps new ideas and discoveries flowing. Progress in almost any field, be it industry, business, or medicine, depends on the amount of knowledge one has access to. Continuing wit Fermilab as our working example, it is true that a discovery such as a top quark almost certainly cannot yield a direct, beneficial application for mankind. But, in order to make that discovery, and what is not obvious to the general public, requires new technologies and breakthroughs that can often lead to spin-offs that revolutionize everyday life. The world of fast computation, massive data storage, and fast electronics has been built on the work that needed to be done to build Fermilab and discover the top quark. Applications of superconductivity took this phenomenon from a fascinating quantum state we can produce in the lab to the world of high-strength magnets necessary for steering particles at the speed of light. Little did anyone originally know that eventually someone would figure out that these same superconducting magnets can be used to create internal images of the body, now called MRI technology. This blog site is possible because of the pioneering computer network (both hardware and software) created by high energy physicists, who found it necessary to share data between experiments in the U.S. and Europe. And most people are unaware of the Cancer Treatment Center at Fermilab, that uses neutron beams created by the main accelerators. There are only four such centers in the U.S., and thousands of patients have been treated over the years.

The point is that pure science is absolutely essential. This type of science ensures that we keep pushing the envelope and continue our quest of deciphering Nature’s puzzles. It leads to the fringe and cutting edge science in all disciplines. While primary work may or may not be useful for the general public in the form of a physical device or process, history shows convincingly that whatever investment is made will usually be paid back (often many times over) in the form of spin-offs. I, for one, have no complaints of some of my tax money going towards a national lab such as Fermilab, or any other facility that promotes pure science research.

Fluids in rotating systems - Example, what happens to hydraulic jump on a rotating surface?

Fluids are challenging because of our lack of understanding of the details of turbulence, a chaotic, random process of fluids of all types. One way to introduce turbulence into fluid flow is through rotations, and the currents produced within fluids due to the rotation. 

This could lead to numerous possible experimental setups and research questions. Think about, as a primary experimental design, using old turntables to mount a surface and rotate it. One could also use drills with variable speeds, and connect surfaces to the drill. Be creative and design and build a structure that will hold a drill in place, and attach the surface (perhaps flat pieces of plastic or vinyl, for instance).

One other interesting option is to experiment with using rheoscopic fluid mixed with water. This is interesting because you may be able to see and video flow patterns that arise. 

As is the case for most 'basement science' experiments, the primary data collection will be with video. If you have cameras that do high-speed video collection, this is ideal. Be sure to have, in your experiments, some measuring device or scale(s) that allow you to determine and measure distances and possibly times when it comes to video analysis. Using software such as Tracker allows you to do video analysis frame-by-frame, if your phone or camera does not do this.  

Possible Experiments and Research Questions:

• Hydraulic jump on rotating surfaces: What happens to a hydraulic jump when the water jet lands on a rotating surface? Do different patterns or characteristics arise as a function of rotational speed? Try other liquids for the jets and compare/contrast what happens, as a function of density and viscosity.
• One could attach petri dishes or other containers on the rotating surface. Many options arise for experiments: start with the petri dish empty, and have a water or other liquid jets fall into the dish as it rotates. What happens initially, and what happens as liquid begins to fill the dish? One could vary the rotational speed, flow rates of the jets, and any other parameters that are involved in your design. 
• Is it possible to rig a rotating surface on angles? This may produce new types of patterns and behaviors of the hydraulic jump, or whatever else a fluid does when hitting a rotating surface with gravity now an influence. 
• What happens if two different fluids are involved? For instance, one could have a petri dish partially filled with water, and a jet of some type of oil falls into it, with and without rotation of the dish. Or a thin layer of oil could start in the petri dish, and a jet of water falls into it, with or without rotation of the dish. Is there any sign of a jump, depending on the depth of the initial liquid layer? What strange patterns emerge as the water-oil 'mixes' and/or separates? 
• Start with layers of liquids, such as a layer of water with a layer of some type of oil on top, at rest. What happens when this setup is rotated, as functions of rotational speed, depths of layers of water and/or oil, and diameter of the dish or container? What happens if a jet of oil or water falls into this system, both with and without rotation? 
• What happens to any of the above rotating experiments, when the rotating platform or dish has rough surfaces? Or patterns of grooves, bumps, obstacles arranged in various patterns, or curved rather than flat surfaces? Think of all the variations on a theme one could dream up and try, each of which would be a new set of experiments and research questions. We are not aware of any experiments that have been done for these types of rotating experiments.
• What would happen to any of the above rotating experiments if granular materials were involved? For instance, what if there was a petri dish or container on the rotating surface that starts off with thin layers of sand, various sized plastic beads, or other granular material covering the surface? What would happen when different liquid jets fall into the granulars? 

This could be a rich source of numerous, original fluid experiments and projects!