The Motivation for Research in Physics

Abhimitra, from Sherwood High in India, writes:

The amount of money required to probe this universe or the aub-atomic particles is undoubtedly huge. Though we do talk about the applications of Elementary Particle Physics in the future, how right is it in this world,plagued with terrorism, evil and poverty, that such HUGE quantity of money is spent on something which may take DECADES or maybe even CENTURIES to really show some practical application. Instead, shouldn't we divert our resources to more immediate and necessary priorities, and try to eradicate ignorance from this world before we venture into these fields which we actually probe out of sheer curiosity? As a scientist, isn't it your moral responsibility to look into the consumption of resources and limit them according to properly set priorities? How do you really justify the money being spent on LHC?

Hi Abhimitra,

I really do not work on anything to do with the LHC in particular, but I will endeavor to answer your questions from the viewpoint of basic research in general.  Someone else can justify the LHC in particular.

To begin with, the amount of money spent on these projects, although quite sizable compared to my graduate student salary, is actually pretty small compared to the amounts that governments spend on a regular basis on other programs.  Also, the cost of these projects is also often shared between governments and organizations.  The bulk of my thesis experiment (The G0 Experiment), for example, was funded by the United States (the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation), by CNRS in France, and by NSERC in Canada, along with manpower, hardware, and technical support from the collaborating universities, TRIUMF, and Jefferson Lab. 

It is true that many of the investments in basic research in such areas as nuclear and particle physics are long-term, and that applications of the research can take a long time to show up in everyday life.  However, that is not always true, especially for the technology designed for these experiments.  X-rays were almost immediately used for medical imaging after their discovery.  I just recently went to a seminar by General Electric on advances being made in medical imaging using the advances we are currently making in detector designs in nuclear and particle physics.  For that matter, advances have been steadily been being made in medical imaging as new developments have been being made through the past century!  (If you ever need an x-ray, CAT, PET, MRI or any medical scan, or radiotherapy to combat cancer, remember, physicists had to research all that before it could be applied to anything and the imagining techniques have been steadily getting better as our knowledge about these things grows.)

Even for the discoveries and developments that do take a long time to have a practical application, if those things had never been researched, there would never be any application at all.  If all the money had not been put into developing theories about electricity, magnetism and solid-state physics, into doing experiments to verify those ideas, into discovering new materials with specific properties, and into designing better technology to make use of all of these in the last century, you and I would not have computers and the internet to communicate with about this question!  How would you even be informed of the evils of the world that need to be dealt with if it was not for all of the research that went into the devices that allowed that information to be conveyed to you so rapidly (televisions, radios, telephones, etc.)?  And how will you work toward a better world without the tools that such research has provided?   Where do you think that all the amazing things in our present age came from?  They came from the investments of people, organizations, and governments into the work of scientists of the past and present!

I find it interesting that you say that we should eradicate ignorance before we allocate resources for research based on "sheer curiosity", since it is the curiosity and creativity of the human spirit that are the greatest tools we have in banishing ignorance.   Without striving for knowledge, if we become complacent and believe ourselves to be already 'knowledgeable enough,' then how can we possibly fight ignorance?  Fighting ignorance is not simply an act you go out and do; it is a constant journey to better yourself and to make more information available so that others can better themselves as well.  The entire point of a career in any research field is to find out things we did not know and tell it to others so it can be used effectively for the betterment of mankind.  Research is about more than just "sheer curiosity".  It is about enriching the lives of everyone by understanding our universe better and by the advances we can make through that better understanding.  My job as a research scientist is in the very beginnings of a chain that connects to just about every aspect of life, and just because the windings of that chain are not immediately obvious all the time does not make my link unimportant.  Without this vital link, there is no further chain to advance on, nothing for others to build on to help make a better world. 

Sadly, the evils you speak of are not unique to our world in this time.   Poverty, terrorism, and evil have been with us since the dawn of humanity, and persist despite the endeavors of many great people throughout the ages.  (That's a lot longer than the application of any physics discovery I know of.)  Everyone should do all that they can to combat such darkness.  But does that mean that all other advances of society should be halted to focus entirely on one or two issues?  That does not seem like a very balanced way to approach things.  Poverty is a much larger issue than just throwing money at it will solve, and diverting money from physics research will not help combat terrorism based on ideological disagreements.  If all research funding was diverted to other uses, who would be doing the research to collect the knowledge that will be needed to come up with better and lasting solutions to these problems?   

Everyone (not just physicists or scientists in general) has a moral responsibility about the consumption of resources according to "properly set priorities".  Why do you think that we set up governments where we elect people that we think will set those priorities along what we think is right and important? (I'm not saying that the system is perfect, though.)  And although the practical benefits are often long-term for physics, it is clear that there are tangible benefits that come from all the areas of physics.  What about areas of life that have no clearly practical benefits?  Does this mean that art, music, and movies should no longer be produced since they offer little practical benefit, but the production of these things consumes resources?  They are clearly beneficial in the enrichment, entertainment, and inspiration of lives, but they do not have much in the way of practical application.  Are you saying that there is a moral responsibility to cut out all things that consume resources but do not have immediate practical applications to life?

Like much of life, it is a balancing act, though.  It is wrong to neglect the present and the current issues that surround us.  As an illustration, if you ignore your responsibilities and never hand in homework in your history class in high school, you'll get in trouble, get detention and fail the class.  However, it is dangerous to do just enough to survive the present: to pass the class.  If you do not bother to learn more than you have to know to just squeak through with a passing grade in your classes, you will probably not pass the standardized college entrance exams, so you will not be able to go to college and progress in your education.  Though you addressed your immediate problems, you did not invest in your future wisely, so you are now limited in your options and will have to work much harder and longer to reach the same goal. Ideally, there should be work done both for the present and for the future so that we are prepared for what we do not even know is coming!

If you do not invest in the future, then there will not be as bright a future to look forward to, and when that future becomes the present, there will not be any tools or knowledge available to improve that present.

Best of luck to you in your future endeavors!

With Regards,

             Sarah K

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many thanks to Vipuli Dharmawardane, for sharing her knowledge about the discovery of x-rays; to Jason Moscatello, for his careful proof-reading and astute editing comments; and to Kent Paschke, for his thoughtful proof-reading and the fun conversation that ensued.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Update from Friday, October 14: This question and my answer to it are now also posted in the Einstein: What's the Big Idea? blog and my own blog, so if you would like to see more comments about this post, be sure to check the comments posted in the other blogs.  - SKP

Comments

[claire]

Excellent answer!
:)

[Abhimitra]

Though the answer was properly researced on and replied, I would very much have liked to debate furthur on this topic. Being a physics student and enthusiast, I know the importance of science research and it's practical applications.

Though the line between pure and applied sciences has thinned down to ALMOST zero, there remains a distinction between the two. I was actually referring to the researches into the more "pure" part of physics, which may not have any significance in future. Taking the example of LHC was probably not a good idea. Physics has always been my primary interest but I feared that a research into this field may not bring up something good as it takes too long to see the practical applications. I am thankful to Sarah Phillips for taking time out to reply to this question. I am more at ease with a career in physics now. I am certainly convinced that I am going to join an elite class of people who are striving to make this world a better place.

[Luis Gustavo Lira]

Im from a thirld world country (Peru). I think every scientist and every people with education have moral responsability over their society problems and priorities. What is the most important for my country spend money in support the research about super strings or spend money in research about Malaria?. Every society have to set their priorities. The science can help us to solve our problems. We the people with education can change the things in the right way.