Research vs Application

[IndorilTheGreat]

I was talking with a friend of mine about technology, and how it advances at an exponential rate. He then brought up an interesting point; in order for technology to advance, research into that field of technology is required. For example, if William Gilbert had not wrote about how electricity affects different objects, coining the term "electricity" as well as electric force, magnetic poles, and electric attraction, the study of static electricity may not have started until much later than 1660 BCE. I may not be typing this up if that were the case, since the study of static electricity led to the study of electric forces and controlling those forces.

 

My point is this: when does the knowledge gained from researching something reach the level of application?

 

How about a modern day example:

 

People all over the world are worrying about the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). As we start looking deeper and deeper into the start of our universe, and begin messing around with those beginnings, the dangers of something cataclysmic happening may increase greatly (please note that I am not trying to give a "doomsday speech," I am all for scientific advancement, this is just an interesting viewpoint in my opinion).

 

As a species, if we wish to advance technology, we can't simply use the knowledge that we discover through research without a proper way to use it; it would be like trying to take a nuclear bomb and using it to power a car - the results could be quite disastrous.

 

To sum it up, I'll leave it at this; at what point should knowledge of the universe gained through research and study be put into application? Do you think that delving too deeply into knowledge without know-how is dangerous?

 

I'm curious to see what everyone's opinion on this matter is.

 

Cheers,

IndorilTheGreat

[Vagrant0]

Generally speaking, atleast in modern terms, that point happens when someone understands the forces involved well enough to make a prototype and get investors. This happens much more quickly with most computer based technology since the tendency for things to go completely pants and cause deaths is reasonably small (with the point of singularity nowhere in sight). With things like robotics, energy generation, propulsion, there is not only a larger amount of risk involved, but also some pressure by those invested in competing businesses to limit those technologies.

 

The other problem is that sometimes research is skewed in a way that it forces widespread application before any good data is used. Such as is often the case with medical research. There is now so much pressure for drug companies to come out with better medications for symptoms that we never knew we had, to where they push out drugs where the side-effects are worse than the symptoms, or where the research itself is strongly biased due to non-reporting of failures. Meaning that in these cases, the research doesn't even need to be good or substantial, it just needs to be something that people can put money into.

 

 

Going back to that whole thing about electricity, it wasn't one person, or even one period of time that was able to piece everything together, but rather it was a bunch of people exchanging notes, hitting dead ends, and being developed from just this curious thing that nobody understood, to this thing that could be applied and used willingly. But it also had a good deal of help since people could already see some of the effects of electricity and magnetism without much human intervention. But most of it becomes dependent on either money or some boffin tinkering away with those sorts of things that others don't have the time or money to really play with.

[Nintii]

I think that any money spent researching that which would enhance the quality of life is money well spent.

Often times money could and is spent on someone's "pet project" that might ultimately lead to nowhere or

it might lead to failure.

Nevertheless, failure should not be the end of research.

It should rather be seen as just one more way on how "not to do it" ... let's take a look at the simple light bulb,

it took over Edison over 10,000 attempts until he finally got it right.

Just imagine if he had given up.

Therefore, continual research is essential.

 

Having said that, my problem with modern research is that it seems to be common practice to elevate "theory" to the

point of fact and a good couple of hours of watching Channels like Discovery etc., will confirm this.

Just because someone says so, even if they have the entire abbreviated Alphabet in front of their name does

not mean it is so.

Therefore, it is neccessary to continue with research and eliminate every Tom, Dick and Harriet who comes

up with some new fangled idea of the universe, medicine, science or technology.

[Marxist ßastard]

The other problem is that sometimes research is skewed in a way that it forces widespread application before any good data is used. Such as is often the case with medical research. There is now so much pressure for drug companies to come out with better medications for symptoms that we never knew we had, to where they push out drugs where the side-effects are worse than the symptoms, or where the research itself is strongly biased due to non-reporting of failures. Meaning that in these cases, the research doesn't even need to be good or substantial, it just needs to be something that people can put money into.

The cost of drug development has been doubling every six years. Since the '60s, the number of participants in clinical trials has increased hundreds-fold. Please don't pretend you're an expert of areas in which you have zero knowledge.

[Vagrant0]

The other problem is that sometimes research is skewed in a way that it forces widespread application before any good data is used. Such as is often the case with medical research. There is now so much pressure for drug companies to come out with better medications for symptoms that we never knew we had, to where they push out drugs where the side-effects are worse than the symptoms, or where the research itself is strongly biased due to non-reporting of failures. Meaning that in these cases, the research doesn't even need to be good or substantial, it just needs to be something that people can put money into.

The cost of drug development has been doubling every six years. Since the '60s, the number of participants in clinical trials has increased hundreds-fold. Please don't pretend you're an expert of areas in which you have zero knowledge.

I never claimed to be an expert, but there are many cases of oversights, rushed trials, non-reporting, or other practices done simply to push that multi-billion dollar drug out into the market. We also have many more "disorders" which are being prescribed for which are being found just about the same time that some drug company makes a drug specifically for that "disorder"... That cannot be merely coincidence.

 

From a research standpoint, this isn't only happening in medicine. I've lost count of the number of psychological or sociological research (peer reviewed and published) papers I've read through which came from people with high degrees, but which show hints of faulty practices or just bad logic.

[Marxist ßastard]

I never claimed to be an expert, but... I've lost count of the number of psychological or sociological research (peer reviewed and published) papers I've read through which came from people with high degrees, but which show hints of faulty practices or just bad logic.

Who would you say is an expert?

[Vagrant0]

I never claimed to be an expert, but... I've lost count of the number of psychological or sociological research (peer reviewed and published) papers I've read through which came from people with high degrees, but which show hints of faulty practices or just bad logic.

Who would you say is an expert?

Probably someone who is an editor for one of those very peer reviewed publications, who is in a position to actually have contact with those who conduct those studies and who, as having both a doctorate themselves and have years of experience in not only reviewing those studies, but also in their own practice. And even then, they would only know about those things that cross their desk, so probably not an expert at much.

 

Which is partly why many of the symptoms of this problem take years to come to light... Either in the form of drugs being pulled for "unanticipated" side effects, including death, or notions which leak out into mainstream beliefs, but which are based on faulty logic, or actual research which shows the exact opposite.

[Marxist ßastard]

I see.

 

Hey, this may be OT, but did you ever get published that unique cosmological theory of yours?

[Vagrant0]

I see.

 

Hey, this may be OT, but did you ever get published that unique cosmological theory of yours?

There wasn't any merit to it. So no.

 

And I do take offense to you asking solely for the purpose of weakening my comments here, while offering no evidence to support your own position beyond "costs are higher, so it MUST be better". I honestly can't think of any situation in business (drug research IS business) where you would have increasing costs, but still be able to maintain a level of quality. The more it costs to do the research, the more pressure there is to bring that drug to market in any way possible, bribe doctors to prescribe it, and raise profits enough to start on the next drug for when that one eventually gets pulled. Just because I don't have professional experience doesn't mean that I can't see this very thing happening and understand it as it is reported.

 

 

If you're going to limit valid opinions on a subject to only those with letters after their name, then I would imagine that you'd be hard pressed to find enough people to even play a game of poker around here.