[pandler]

> The work has received funding from the National Geographic Society and the U.S. National Institutes of Health, as better understanding adaptations to high altitude life is “potentially relevant in treating a number of human diseases that relate to... problems with oxygen delivery and oxygen utilization,” he says.

I often wonder how discoveries like this ultimately manifest into actionable technology. Are they studying cell structure? DNA? What does that process look like?

> The results could also aid doctors in treating altitude sickness and coping with life at high altitude or elsewhere where there are low levels of oxygen.

That makes me wonder if the end goal is some kind of pharmaceutical drug.

Very interesting nonetheless!

[maxbond]

I think the reality is that researchers justify themselves to grant writing organizations in whatever way they can but are often just doing science for it's own sake.

Anecdotally, I watched a talk about how the structure of the ribosome was solved, and the researcher mentioned that they justified themselves to grant writing organizations by saying it would help develop antibiotics - which did turn out to be the case, but they described themselves as feeling amused rather than vindicated.

I believe it was this talk.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRIDCQM3d7I

[kaonwarb]

Bingo. While understandable, I fear the need to justify nearly all research by potential foreseeable gain limits our ability to invest in truly fundamental science.

[bonoboTP]

Well, researchers have learned to play the game and with enough creativity you can make up potential applications for grant writing purposes.

[wongarsu]

Yes, grant-style funding is really bad for basic research. For where larger institutes have the advantage: a few prestigious findings can bring the funding to do a lot of less glamorous stuff on the side.

[MaxBarraclough]

> often just doing science for its own sake

Or trying to advance their careers, which isn't the same thing, as it's self-interest without regard for whether science is being meaningfully advanced.

[nicoburns]

I mean sure, but people don't generally go into a career in science unless they're genuinely interested in it.

[bonoboTP]

You'd be surprised. Some really enjoy the status game and the power dynamics.

[MaxBarraclough]

I've read horror stories about toxic careerism in science where real scientific progress is only ever a by-product.

[ponker]

It’s almost impossible to predict how any knowledge will be used in the future. What is certain is that if you look at almost anything that exists in modern society, its existence depends on thousands of knowledge morsels, few of which were created with such eventual application in mind. That’s why successful civilizations must invest in knowledge regardless of its apparent practical relevance.