Schauz Désirée
Technische Universität München, Fachgebiet Technikgeschichte, c/o Deutsches Museum, Museumsinsel 1, 80538 Munich, Germany.
Minerva. 2014;52(3):273-328. doi: 10.1007/s11024-014-9255-0.
For some years now, the concept of basic research has been under attack. Yet although the significance of the concept is in doubt, basic research continues to be used as an analytical category in science studies. But what exactly is basic research? What is the difference between basic and applied research? This article seeks to answer these questions by applying historical semantics. I argue that the concept of basic research did not arise out of the tradition of pure science. On the contrary, this new concept emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, a time when scientists were being confronted with rising expectations regarding the societal utility of science. Scientists used the concept in order to try to bridge the gap between the promise of utility and the uncertainty of scientific endeavour. Only after 1945, when United States science policy shaped the notion of basic research, did the concept revert to the older ideals of pure science. This revival of the purity discourse was caused by the specific historical situation in the US at that time: the need to reform federal research policy after the Second World War, the new dimension of ethical dilemmas in science and technology during the atomic era, and the tense political climate during the Cold War.
多年来,基础研究的概念一直受到抨击。然而,尽管这一概念的重要性受到质疑,但基础研究在科学研究中仍被用作一个分析范畴。但基础研究究竟是什么?基础研究与应用研究有何区别?本文试图通过运用历史语义学来回答这些问题。我认为基础研究的概念并非源自纯科学传统。相反,这一新概念出现在19世纪末20世纪初,当时科学家们面临着对科学社会效用不断提高的期望。科学家们使用这一概念是为了试图弥合效用承诺与科学探索不确定性之间的差距。只有在1945年之后,当美国科学政策塑造了基础研究的概念时,这一概念才回归到纯科学的旧有理想。这种对纯粹性话语的复兴是由当时美国的特定历史形势造成的:二战后改革联邦研究政策的必要性、原子时代科技伦理困境的新维度以及冷战期间紧张的政治氛围。