TRUTH about US R&D SPENDING from BRITISH NATURE
hrubin at b.stat.purdue.edu
Sun Apr 21 05:31:54 EST 1996
In article <4lb2j2$1fv at decius.ultra.net>,
Marc Andelman <drgonfly at biosource.ultranet.com> wrote:
>> Please pardon me if I interject in this conversation with a
>real life example. I only describe my own situation because
>I am more familiar with it, and seem to be the only basement
>researcher in this group.
> I invented a neat little gizmo that borders on basic
>science, called a flow through capacitor.
What does this have to do with science, and especially with
basic science? I am not commenting on the device itself, but
any science would be in developing the principles on which it
operates, and not on developing gadgets, etc.
This is not to say that technology is unimportant. But in far
too many cases, the basic science for the technology is not
available. This is the difference between fiddling about with
chemicals in the hope that one will enable the treatment of
some disease, and finding the basic biology which will help
in designing the chemicals.
Herman Rubin, Dept. of Statistics, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette IN47907-1399
hrubin at stat.purdue.edu Phone: (317)494-6054 FAX: (317)494-0558
More information about the Bioforum