Professor Ehud Bacher, head of the Asher Institute for Space Research at the Technion indirectly opposes the requirements for applied science and says that the developments would not have come without the freedom to perform basic science
In an era where you work before you study, connect before you meet, get divorced before you get married, make an exit before you integrate into the market, talk before you think and in short finish before you start - I find it increasingly difficult for many to understand why I chose to become a scientist, or as my uncle would call it - Doctor The kind that does no one any good, and another astrophysicist, mercifully, who studies black holes, exploding stars and how on earth the heavy elements got to the intergalactic medium.
Even in the ancient glorious civilizations of Egypt, Greece, not to mention the Israelites, as soon as the wars stopped, as soon as there was something to eat, virtuous individuals freed themselves up for meditation and research. why? Just because it's interesting. Curiosity is deeply embedded in human nature. Even those who are able to digest applied and technological science, find it difficult to internalize the point of basic research whose entire purpose is to discover the hidden and to understand the incomprehensible, just because it is there. Is that what you get paid for? I am asked more than once.
In a very deep sense, applied science is an oxymoron. The purpose of research is to understand the unknown, and how can the unknown and incomprehensible be applied? It's not just about the exact sciences, of course, "just because it's interesting" also refers to how the mosquito's body works, where Herod is buried and why, and what was the influence of the pagan Canaanites on the culture of Israel during the time of the Bible. It is interesting that those nations and countries that freed up to engage in and invest in basic research, in thought and spirit, that is, in a less practical way than apparently, are also the ones that developed especially in their time, even if the causal connection is not entirely clear. Perhaps because the unknown outweighs the understandable and applicable, perhaps because there is still added value to deepening that requires years of time and human resources.
Even in our time, there are countless examples of completely surprising applications, which originate from research and pure curiosity that did not foresee the application: radioactivity, X-rays, the Internet, GPS, penicillin, Teflon, and more and more drugs, chemical elements, and new materials. Think for a moment what our lives would look like without them, that is, without the research behind them. How exactly did the research lead to the surprising applications? Go find out. Just because it's interesting.
Ehud Bacher, professor of physics and head of the Asher Space Research Institute at the Technion
The article was published in the Technion magazine
5 תגובות
Mortars:
You might be interested in what I wrote here:
https://www.hayadan.org.il/meta-beuty-2911082/
Basic science is a cultural matter - like poetry, literature and art. It's a human need, regardless of whether they hired him or not. People look at the stars for example (just an example of an ancient science that is alive and kicking even today) even though there is nothing to "do" with them, because their existence makes us think about ourselves and the world around us in a different, not useful way.
like art
You write:
"As soon as the wars subsided, as soon as there was something to eat, the individuals of Segula freed themselves up for thought and research. why? Just because it's interesting."
This is exactly the main problem. As long as it is not possible to make a living from basic research, it is not engaged in. And the problem in the State of Israel is that it is impossible to make a living from basic research. Take the universities: they are not budgeted for basic research. The teaching of basic research is often performed by faculty who are emeritus and do so on a voluntary basis. This is because of a lack of budget: there is no budget to hire young faculty to study and do basic research! Therefore, the recommendation is that it is not worthwhile to engage in basic research. Curiosity is not enough motivation. And you yourself write this: only as soon as there was something to eat (!) did individuals free themselves for thought and research. In other words, when there is nothing to eat, there is no room for research.
And since the universities in Israel are not properly accredited, it is impossible to apply for basic research in Israel!
As reinforcement and assistance according to Prof. Ehud Bacher, I would like to raise another supporting reason for the right to freedom of research.
I believe that the sentence "... even if the causal relationship is not entirely clear..." referring to the causal relationship between pure research and technological advancement is incorrect. I will try to explain: it has been proven in the past that the important and groundbreaking scientific discoveries cannot be predicted in advance. The technological developments that can be predicted and planned are based on
Existing knowledge. Since important scientific discoveries are unpredictable, there is a very significant element of randomness here. Research directions that initially seem promising may turn out to be pointless after a while and vice versa, directions whose usefulness is initially questionable may later turn out to be very useful.
Who then is the genius government official who will be able to successfully determine what is the worthy field and what is the unworthy field for research? There is no such official.
Very nice. Yes, they will multiply and break through. I'm glad that at least the academy understands this, despite the heavy pressures exerted on them from above. I also hope that the academy will be able to convince the providers of money and the various foundations that science for science's sake is at least as important as science for healing and the like.
Wishing you a happy Passover,
Ami Bachar