[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.