Research: Fundamental and Applied, and the Public

People are always talking about fundamental research, implying thereby the existence of a nameless opposite. A good definition of fundamental research will certainly be welcomed: let us see whether we can invent one. We have to begin, of course, by defining research. Unfortunately the concept of research contains a negative element. Research is searching without knowing what you are going to find: if you know what you are going to find you have already found it, and your activity is not research. Now, since the outcome of your research is unknown, how can you know whether it will be fundamental or not?

We may say for instance that fundamental research is that which you undertake without caring whether the results will be of practical value or not. It may not be reasonable to go further and say that fundamental research is that which will be abandoned as soon as it shows a sign of leading to results of practical value. By saying this you may limit your own achievement. It will be better to say that fundamental research is that which may have no immediate practical value, but can be counted upon as leading to practical value sooner or later. The extension of knowledge and understanding of the world around us will always be profitable in the long run, if not in the short.

This is a very powerful argument for fundamental research and it is a completely unassailable one, and yet there are people who will not like it. Let us seek a definition that will give fundamental research a value of its own, not dependent upon other uses appearing soon or late. We say, for instance, that fundamental research is that which extends the theory. Now we have to theorize

upon theory.

There have been several viewpoints about theory. One is that theory discerns the underlying simplicity of the universe. The non-theorist sees a confused mass of phenomena: when he becomes a theorist they fuse into a simple and dignified structure. But some contemporary theories are so intricate that an increasing number of people prefer dealing with the confusion of the phenomena than with the confusion of theory.

A different idea suggests that theory enables one to calculate the result of an experiment in a shorter time than it takes to perform the experiment. I do not think that the definition is very pleasing to the theorists, for some problems are obviously solved more quickly by experimentors than by theorists.

Another viewpoint is that theory serves to suggest new experiments. This is sound, but it makes the theorist the handman of the experimentator, and be may not like this auxiliary role. Still another viewpoint is that theory serves to discourage the waste of time on making useless experiments.

Divide the text into its logical parts and give a title to each part.

Explain the meaning of the words “research”, “definition”, “argument” in English. Give the sentences of your own using these words.

3. What have you learnt about: a) fundamental research b) different viewpoints about theory c) possible outcome of the research

Translate into English

Виды исследований

Фундаментальные научные исследования — это экспериментальные или теоретические исследования, направленные на получение новых знаний без какой-либо конкретной цели, связанной с использованием этих знаний. Их результаты — гипотезы, теории, методы и т. д. Фундаментальные научные исследования могут заканчиваться рекомендациями для прикладных исследований, научными публикациями и т.п. ЮНЕ СКО относит к чисто фундаментальным исследования, направленные на открытие законов природы, установление отношений между явлениями и объектами реальной действительности.

Прикладные научные исследования — исследования, направленные на получение новых знаний с целью практического их использования. Результатом прикладных исследований являются рекомендации по созданию технических инноваций.

Прилагательное (TheAdjective)