Navigating a dichotomy

In the 1920s, Werner Heisenberg's abstract exploration of quantum mechanics appeared to be purely academic, an intellectual pursuit with no apparent practical use. Yet, decades later, his groundbreaking work became the cornerstone for transformative technologies such as semiconductors, laser communication, and GPS systems—innovations that have revolutionised modern life. Similarly, the Green Revolution of the 1960s, which is credited with averting mass hunger in India, was made possible through mission-driven breakthroughs in crop genetics by Norman Borlaug. These breakthroughs, however, were underpinned by foundational research in biology and agriculture. These examples illustrate a historical reality: basic research seldom produces immediate results. Its impact is often indirect and unfolds over decades, challenging policymakers in resource-constrained nations to decide whether to prioritise funding for basic research or mission-oriented research aimed at addressing immediate societal challenges.

Basic research serves as the bedrock of technological progress and economic development, offering multifaceted benefits that transcend direct applications. Econometric analyses repeatedly demonstrate high rates of return on public investments in basic research. For instance, studies by Bergman (1990) and Martin (1998) highlight how university-led research has catalysed innovation and economic growth. Yet, measuring these impacts remains challenging due to the complexity of isolating variables and the limitations of production function models.

Basic research fosters innovation by advancing instrumentation, methodologies, and human capital. It equips graduate researchers with the skills and tacit knowledge needed to solve complex problems, creating a workforce that drives innovation across sectors. Participation in fundamental research also connects researchers to global networks, facilitating the absorption of external knowledge and fostering technological spillovers critical for industrial competitiveness.

Vannevar Bush, a pioneering advocate of basic research, underscored its importance in his seminal report, Science, the Endless Frontier (1945). Commissioned by President Franklin D Roosevelt during World War II, the report laid the foundation for post-war US science policy. Bush argued that basic research builds “scientific capital,” which fuels long-term innovation. Breakthroughs such as radar and penicillin, pivotal during the war, were rooted in decades of basic inquiry. He emphasised that neglecting basic research would leave nations vulnerable in global competition, compromising economic growth, technological leadership, and national security.

Bush’s arguments remain relevant today. Basic research underpins the development of entirely new industries, from synthetic fibers to semiconductors. It also addresses long-term challenges in national security by fostering the technological capabilities needed to counter emerging threats. Furthermore, basic research embodies a philosophical commitment to intellectual freedom and the pursuit of knowledge as a public good. Bush believed that “scientific progress results from the free play of free intellects,” emphasising the intrinsic value of expanding humanity’s understanding of nature.

However, basic research is often criticised for its long gestation period and uncertain outcomes. In resource-constrained settings, this delay can amplify opportunity costs, as immediate societal needs such as poverty alleviation, healthcare, and infrastructure demand urgent attention.

Mission-oriented research focuses on addressing specific, well-defined goals, offering tangible solutions to pressing challenges. Francis Bacon’s philosophy that scientific discovery should aim for “the relief of man’s estate” resonates strongly with this approach. Mariana Mazzucato, in her book Mission Economy: A Moonshot Guide to Changing Capitalism (2021), advocates for “moonshot thinking,” where public investments are aligned with societal priorities. For countries like India, this approach has proven transformative.

The Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO) exemplifies the power of mission-driven research. Guided by a clear vision, ISRO has delivered cutting-edge technologies, enhanced global competitiveness, and addressed developmental needs through applications like weather forecasting and telecommunications. Similarly, initiatives such as the Jal Jeevan Mission and Renewable Energy Mission demonstrate how targeted research can drive economic growth and solve critical problems.

Mission-oriented research offers several advantages for resource-constrained nations. First, it ensures timely benefits by targeting urgent challenges, such as food security and public health. Second, it reduces the risks associated with unfocused basic research, enabling efficient resource allocation. Third, it fosters collaboration between academia, industry, and government, creating vibrant innovation ecosystems. Finally, it builds capacity and public support by delivering visible achievements that inspire national pride and technological self-reliance.

However, exclusive reliance on mission-driven research poses risks. By prioritising immediate applicability, it may neglect foundational advancements, stifling the pipeline of new ideas essential for long-term innovation. Mazzucato’s model assumes the availability of basic research as a foundation for translational efforts. Without sustained investments in basic research, the ecosystem of mission-driven innovation risks stagnation. Moreover, the predefined goals of mission-oriented research may constrain creativity, leaving little room for serendipitous discoveries.

The dilemma between basic and mission-oriented research is not a binary choice but a spectrum that requires balance. A pragmatic strategy integrates both approaches, creating a dynamic research ecosystem where each feeds into the other. The United States and China offer compelling examples of how this balance can be achieved.

In the US, institutions like the National Science Foundation (NSF) focus on funding basic research, while agencies like the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) drive high-risk, high-reward translational projects with strategic goals. This dual framework ensures a steady flow of foundational advancements while addressing immediate technological challenges. China’s “Made in China 2025” strategy similarly combines targeted investments in quantum computing, artificial intelligence, and renewable energy with long-term funding for basic science.

For India, adopting a dual focus is critical for enhancing global competitiveness and addressing developmental challenges. Investments in basic research are necessary to build the scientific capital that fuels mission-oriented projects. At the same time, mission-driven research can address pressing needs, such as renewable energy, water management, and healthcare, ensuring that science directly benefits society.

The writer is an economist and author. Views expressed are personal