Editing Science policy (section)

===Basic versus applied research===

The programs that are funded are often divided into four basic categories: [[basic research]], [[applied research]], [[Research and development|development]], and facilities and equipment.<ref name="AAASpresentation">{{cite web|last=Clemins|first=Patrick|title=R&D in the President's FY 2011 Budget|url=http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/presentations/|access-date=20 August 2010}}</ref>{{not verified in body|date=December 2014}}  [[Translational research]] is a newer concept that seeks to bridge the gap between basic science and practical applications.

Basic science attempts to stimulate breakthroughs. Breakthroughs often lead to an explosion of new technologies and approaches.  Once the basic result is developed, it is widely published; however conversion into a practical product is left for the free market.  However, many governments have developed risk-taking research and development organizations to take basic theoretical research over the edge into practical [[engineering]].  In the [[United States|U.S.]], this function is performed by [[DARPA]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.space.com/29273-what-is-darpa.html|title=What Is DARPA?|last1=Howell|first1=Elizabeth|last2=April 30|first2=Space com Contributor {{!}}|website=Space.com|access-date=2019-02-08|last3=ET|first3=2015 12:46am|date=30 April 2015}}</ref>

In contrast, technology development is a policy in which engineering, the application of science, is supported rather than basic science.<ref>{{Cite journal|title=Technology Development|url=https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17749515/|last=Gomory|first=Ralph|journal=Science|date=1983|volume=220|issue=4597|pages=576–580|doi=10.1126/science.220.4597.576|pmid=17749515|bibcode=1983Sci...220..576G|s2cid=40692163}}</ref> The emphasis is usually given to projects that increase important strategic or commercial engineering knowledge.{{Citation needed|date=December 2014}} The most extreme{{dubious|date=December 2014}} success story is undoubtedly  the [[Manhattan Project]] that developed [[nuclear weapon]]s. Another remarkable success story was the "X-vehicle" studies that gave the US a lasting lead in aerospace technologies.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.darpa.mil/program/ground-x-vehicle-technologies|title=Ground X-Vehicle Technologies (GXV-T)|website=www.darpa.mil|access-date=2019-02-08}}</ref>

These exemplify two disparate approaches: The Manhattan Project was huge, and spent freely on the most risky alternative approaches. The project members believed that failure would result in their enslavement or destruction by [[Nazi Germany]]. Each X-project built an aircraft whose only purpose was to develop a particular technology. The plan was to build a few cheap aircraft of each type, fly a test series, often to the destruction of an aircraft, and never design an aircraft for a practical mission. The only mission was technology development.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://theintercept.com/2016/11/16/the-nsas-spy-hub-in-new-york-hidden-in-plain-sight/|title=Titanpointe: The NSA's Spy Hub in New York, Hidden in Plain Sight|last1=Gallagher|first1=Ryan|last2=Moltke|first2=Henrik|date=2016-11-16|website=The Intercept|language=en-US|access-date=2019-02-08}}</ref>

A number of high-profile technology developments have failed. The [[Space Shuttle|US Space Shuttle]] failed to meet its cost or flight schedule goals. Most observers explain the project as over constrained: the cost goals too aggressive, the technology and mission too underpowered and undefined.

The Japanese [[fifth generation computer systems project]] met every technological goal, but failed to produce commercially important [[artificial intelligence]]. Many observers{{Who|date=December 2014}} believe that the Japanese tried to force engineering beyond available science by brute investment. Half the amount spent on basic research rather might have produced ten times the result.{{Citation needed|date=December 2014}}