Basic Research: The Engine of Innovation and Why It Deserves Public Support
Article 1 of Research Week
Other articles in research week: RFK vs CDC, Reproducibility in Science, and Gain of Function Research.
In September 1928, bacteriologist Alexander Fleming returned from vacation to his cluttered London laboratory. As he sorted through a stack of petri dishes growing Staphylococcus bacteria, one plate caught his eye. A fuzzy blob of green mold was invading the culture – and around this unexpected intruder, the bacterial colonies had completely vanished.
Many scientists might have simply thrown out the spoiled plate, but not Fleming. Instead of discarding it, he investigated further. He discovered that the mold (later identified as a strain of Penicillium) was releasing a substance that killed the bacteria—a substance he soon dubbed penicillin. As Fleming later quipped, he “certainly didn’t plan to revolutionize all medicine... but I guess that was exactly what I did”.
Fleming published a report on this finding in 1929, but it attracted little attention at first. It took another decade – and the onset of World War II – before penicillin’s life-saving potential was fully recognized, prompting governments to mobilize for its mass production. What began on a messy lab bench as an accident turned into a miracle drug that changed the course of medicine, allowing doctors to cure once-deadly infections. And remarkably, this life-saving breakthrough sprang not from a quest for profit, but from a scientist free to follow his curiosity – a perfect example of how basic research can transform the world.
Basic scientific research – the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake – is the unsung hero behind many of the modern marvels we take for granted. From life-saving medicines to everyday technologies, countless breakthroughs trace back to studies that had no immediate practical goal. Yet despite its proven track record, basic research often faces scrutiny because its payoffs are unpredictable or long-term. This article explains what basic research is, how it differs from applied research, and why investing public funds in basic science yields tremendous societal, technological, and economic benefits. We’ll explore historical and recent examples of fundamental research leading to major innovations in medicine, physics, computing, and energy. We’ll also examine studies that estimate a strong return on investment (ROI) for government-funded research, making a compelling case for continued – even increased – public investment in basic science.
What Is Basic Research (and How Is It Different from Applied Research)?
Basic research (also called fundamental research) is inquiry aimed at expanding knowledge and understanding without a specific application or product in mind. In basic science, researchers ask open-ended questions about how the world works – for example, investigating how a biological process operates at the molecular level – simply to satisfy curiosity and advance human knowledge. In contrast, applied research is goal-oriented: it uses existing knowledge to solve particular problems or develop new technologies (for instance, designing a treatment for a disease). Basic research pushes the boundaries of understanding, whereas applied research focuses on practical outcomes using known principles.
As most basic research is government-funded, Trump’s cuts to the National Institute of Health (NIH), National Science Foundation (NSF), Department of Energy (DOE), and NASA could threaten the majority of basic research. Truly basic research is characterized by its primary motivation: curiosity and knowledge for its own sake. This type of research may seem like a luxury because it often does not have immediate commercial benefits. Yet, as we will see, basic science lays the groundwork for transformative applications down the road. The history of innovation shows that applied advances almost always spring from the well of fundamental insights. In many instances, we do not know what innovations will be useful and what will not. Thus, basic research allows us to explore the frontier of knowledge and in many cases, serendipitously come across innovations useful for society. Basic and applied research are thus two parts of a continuum, with basic research serving as the wellspring of new ideas that applied science later translates into societal benefits.
Basic Science as a Driver of Breakthroughs and Innovation
Although basic research may lack an obvious use at first, it has a remarkable way of yielding breakthroughs that revolutionize society. Many of the technologies and medicines we rely on today exist precisely because someone pursued knowledge without knowing how useful it would eventually become. In fact, the broad benefits of basic research span fields from medicine to electronics, often in unpredictable ways.
One classic example is medicine’s first antibiotic discussed in the introduction. At the time, Fleming had no product in mind; he was simply exploring biology. Yet penicillin ended up saving millions of lives and ushering in the age of modern antibiotics. What began as a basic lab observation of mold growth became a societal game-changer in healthcare.
Similarly, fundamental physics and chemistry research have enabled many technologies of modern life. The invention of the laser is a good example. When Albert Einstein and Max Planck were uncovering the principles of quantum mechanics in the early 20th century, they had no idea their theoretical work would lead to practical tools. Decades later, those quantum insights led to the first lasers in the 1960s, devices now ubiquitous in medicine (laser surgery), communications (fiber optics), consumer electronics (DVD players), and more. No quantum theory, no lasers – and this pattern repeats throughout innovation history. Early research in electromagnetism by James Clerk Maxwell and others laid the foundation for wireless radio and radar. In fact, the microwave oven was an offshoot of radar research, which in turn built on basic electromagnetic theory. Even something as humble as GPS navigation depends on Einstein’s abstruse theories of relativity – satellites must correct for time dilation effects to give us accurate location data. Thus, abstract physics research eventually enabled everything from global communications to the gadgets in our pockets.
Basic research by the government has also seeded entire industries. Consider the computer and smartphone technology that powers the modern world. The Internet itself began as a U.S. government-funded research project (ARPANET) to explore new ways of networking computers – hardly a commercial endeavor at the start. The multi-touch screens, voice assistants, and GPS in today’s smartphones all trace back to research programs funded by agencies like the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) or university labs. For instance, the voice-recognition software Siri on the iPhone came out of a DARPA-funded artificial intelligence project, and the touchscreen technology was advanced by publicly funded labs. Likewise, satellite GPS was developed by the U.S. military for precise positioning long before it became a civilian navigation tool. It is no exaggeration to say that without decades of government-sponsored basic research, we might not have the Internet, GPS, or smartphones as we know them. The knowledge built up quietly in labs eventually burst out into the marketplace, creating new capabilities and whole new markets.
Basic science can have unexpected practical payoffs that are sometimes called “spin-offs” or “unintended consequences.” A famous case is the space race of the mid-20th century. The U.S. and Soviet Union poured billions of dollars into rocket science and space exploration for strategic reasons, funding a great deal of fundamental research in physics, engineering, and materials science. The effort’s immediate goal was to reach the Moon, but along the way it produced a wealth of everyday innovations. Satellite navigation (GPS), LED lights, cordless power tools, and scratch-resistant glass are just a few of the technologies that emerged as spin-offs of space-related research. At the time, these outcomes were not the primary goal of the spending – they were pleasant surprises that ended up benefitting society at large. This story has repeated with other big science endeavors. Investing in particle physics, for example, led CERN researchers to create the World Wide Web in 1989 simply as a tool to share data – an ancillary invention that transformed global information sharing. The lesson is that when we expand the frontiers of knowledge, useful applications eventually follow, often in ways we couldn’t have predicted.
Advances in Health and Biology
Perhaps the most profound societal benefits of basic research have come in health and biology. The biomedical revolution of the past century is fundamentally a story of basic discoveries enabling new medical capabilities. We saw this with penicillin’s discovery, but it’s just the beginning. The entire field of genetics and biotechnology arose from basic research into the nature of life. When James Watson, Francis Crick, Rosalind Franklin and colleagues deciphered the structure of DNA in 1953, they were driven by pure curiosity about the molecule of heredity. That breakthrough, a classic example of basic research, opened the door to modern genetics. No one in 1953 could have listed all the applications that would flow from knowing the double-helix structure – yet today, that knowledge underpins DNA testing, genetic engineering, cancer therapies, forensic science, and more.
Fast forward to the 1990s, when the U.S. government undertook the Human Genome Project. This ambitious effort to map all human genes was very much exploratory in nature – a $3 billion scientific mission with no immediate commercial product in mind. Skeptics questioned the value of simply cataloguing DNA sequences. But after the human genome was successfully sequenced in 2003, the benefits have been enormous. Today, thanks to that foundational knowledge, we can sequence a person’s genome in days for just a few hundred dollars, enabling personalized medicine and advanced diagnostics. The genomics revolution has given rise to gene therapies for inherited diseases, targeted drugs for cancer, ancestry tracing for individuals, and even improved crops in agriculture. In short, an open-ended research quest produced a paradigm shift in medicine and biotechnology, with impacts still unfolding.
Crucially, the Human Genome Project also turned out to be an economic boon (more on that in the next section). It illustrates how investing in basic science can create entire new sectors of the economy (like the genomics and biotech industries) while also greatly advancing human health.
Another recent example comes from microbiology. In the early 2010s, a pair of scientists, Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier, were studying how bacteria defend themselves against viruses – a seemingly esoteric question of basic biology. In the process, they uncovered the mechanism of CRISPR-Cas9, a bacterial immune system trick for cutting DNA. Recognizing the power of this discovery, they turned it into a revolutionary gene-editing tool. By 2020, CRISPR earned them a Nobel Prize and had become one of the most important technologies in biomedical research. Scientists are now using CRISPR “molecular scissors” to develop cures for diseases like sickle-cell anemia and to engineer improved crops and other organisms. Again, a fundamental curiosity – How do bacteria fight viruses? – led to a breakthrough with massive practical benefits in medicine and agriculture.
Basic research also enabled the world to respond rapidly to the recent COVID-19 pandemic. The mRNA vaccines that saved millions of lives in 2021–2022 did not appear overnight. They were built on decades of prior fundamental research in molecular biology. Scientists had been studying messenger RNA, cell biology, and immunology long before COVID-19 emerged, often with no specific pandemic in mind. In fact, the key technique that made mRNA vaccines possible – a method to deliver mRNA into human cells – was demonstrated by researchers in the late 1980s as a lab experiment. Those researchers were simply curious if cells could uptake genetic instructions packaged in tiny fat droplets. Years later, that knowledge became the foundation for Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna’s COVID vaccines, which were developed and approved at record speed in 2020. By teaching our immune system to recognize a virus’s proteins, mRNA vaccines have proven highly effective and can be made much faster than traditional vaccines. It’s a shining example of how basic science preparedness (knowledge built in advance) can pay off when a crisis hits. In 2021, the new mRNA vaccines achieved over $300 billion in global sales – an economic indicator of their huge impact, but more importantly, they saved countless lives and helped end the pandemic. None of that would have been possible without the foresight to fund basic research in fields like genetics, virology, and structural biology long before the need was obvious.
From these examples – penicillin, DNA, CRISPR, mRNA vaccines, lasers, the Internet, and many more – a clear pattern emerges: today’s fundamental science is tomorrow’s blockbuster innovation. Societal and technological progress depend on the steady pipeline of new knowledge coming from basic research. Sometimes the benefit is direct (a discovery in biology leads to a medical cure within years), and sometimes it’s indirect (decades of physics research create the conditions for a new industry). In all cases, however, an investment in understanding nature better ultimately translates into improvements in our lives, often in ways that recoup the investment many times over.
Economic Impact and Return on Investment (ROI) of Basic Research
Beyond the inspiring stories and life-changing innovations, basic research delivers tangible economic benefits. It’s not just a boon for science – it’s one of the smartest investments society can make. Studies have consistently found that the return on investment for publicly funded R&D is very high. In economic terms, the “spillover” benefits of research (new industries, jobs, increased productivity, etc.) greatly exceed the initial money spent. This section highlights data and credible estimates that show just how economically powerful basic research can be.
At a macro level, economists estimate that the social rate of return on public R&D investment is on the order of 30% to 100% or more. In other words, each dollar spent by the government on science generates several dollars’ worth of value for the economy at large – possibly a return many times over. For example, a study by the National Bureau of Economic Research found that federally funded R&D yields much higher returns than other types of public spending, such as infrastructure investments. This is because research drives innovation, which in turn drives productivity and growth. New knowledge doesn’t get used up; it sparks further discoveries and technologies, fueling an ongoing cycle of economic development. The analysis also noted that government research often complements private-sector R&D rather than displacing it. Public investment in basic science creates opportunities that businesses can later capitalize on, from biotech startups commercializing a lab discovery to tech companies licensing a patented invention that originated in academia.
We can see the economic ripple effects of research in specific success stories. Recall the Human Genome Project (HGP) mentioned earlier – not only was it a scientific triumph, it was an economic blockbuster. A detailed analysis by a finance firm found that the $3.8 billion U.S. government investment in the HGP (spent over 13 years) generated about $796 billion in economic activity by 2010. That is a staggering 141-to-1 return on investment. In President Barack Obama’s words, “Every dollar we invested to map the human genome returned $140 to our economy”. How did this happen? Mapping the genome unlocked a flood of innovation – from biotech companies and new medical tests to genomics research tools – which collectively created jobs, income, and industry growth far beyond the initial expenditure. By one estimate, the genomics sector supported over 300,000 jobs and generated tens of billions in tax revenues within a decade of the HGP’s completion. This example shows how fundamental research can create entirely new economic sectors. The government was effectively “paid back” through economic growth and tax receipts, and society continues to reap benefits in improved health and technology.
Another way to gauge ROI is to look at major research funding agencies. The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH), which mainly funds basic biomedical research, has analyzed its economic impact. In fiscal year 2023, NIH’s budget of about $47 billion generated an estimated $92.9 billion in economic output, meaning roughly $2.46 in economic activity for every $1 of NIH funding. Similarly, in recent years each $1 of NIH funding has been credited with anywhere from $2.21 to $2.46 in local economic growth according to different analyses. This comes from the jobs at universities and labs supported by the grants, the purchase of equipment and supplies, and the downstream economic activity from new knowledge (such as biotech companies spinning off from research findings). In short, investment in research pays for itself by boosting the economy, even in the relatively short term. The long-term returns are likely far larger when the resulting innovations fully mature.
Publicly funded basic research also plays a key role in training the skilled workforce and generating the intellectual property that keeps a country’s economy competitive. For every $100 million of NIH funding, for example, dozens of new patents are produced, and a significant fraction of scientific papers from NIH grants go on to be cited by private-sector patents. This illustrates how government research spending feeds directly into industrial innovation. Many of the top technological advancements (from smartphone components to new drugs) stem from patents and discoveries made in academia or government labs and later developed by companies. The venture capital and startup ecosystem in fields like pharmaceuticals, clean energy, and IT often relies on the foundational science coming out of universities. By funding basic research, the government effectively seeds the ground for entrepreneurs and industry R&D to grow.
It’s also worth noting the opportunity cost of not funding research. If a breakthrough is delayed or missed because we failed to invest in basic science, that can mean lost economic growth and competitiveness. One analysis pointed out that cutting public research funds is “like lightening an overloaded airplane by removing its engine” – it might save money now but undermines future performance. Indeed, numerous economic leaders and organizations have urged sustained or higher R&D funding as a strategy to boost long-term productivity. As one commentator summarized after reviewing evidence, “It’s a no-brainer that public policy should aim to significantly increase both government and private-sector R&D investment to boost innovation-driven productivity and economic growth”.
In summary, basic research is not a luxury expenditure – it’s an investment with proven high returns. Whether measured in direct economic output, job creation, new industries formed, or improved quality of life (which has its own economic value), the money put into fundamental science yields dividends for society. The exact ROI can vary by field and timeframe, but the overall trend from multiple studies is clear: few investments rival basic research in multiplying value over the long run.
Why Continued Government Funding of Basic Science Is Essential
If basic research is so beneficial, one might ask why it needs government funding at all – shouldn’t the private sector invest if the returns are so promising? The reality is that basic science has a special character that makes public funding crucial. Fundamental research often requires significant resources, a long-term outlook, and tolerance for uncertainty that commercial entities may not be able to afford. This is where government steps in: to ensure that society continues to pursue important knowledge that doesn’t have an immediate payoff or guaranteed profit.
Economists describe basic research as a public good – its results (knowledge) are non-exclusive and benefit many, which means private firms can’t easily capture all the rewards. If left purely to the market, there would be underinvestment in basic science because no single company can fully monetize a discovery that others can learn from. Governments fund basic research to overcome this market failure and fuel the engine of innovation for all. As far back as 1945, science adviser Vannevar Bush argued in Science, the Endless Frontier that it is the role of government to fund basic research precisely because “the research is too speculative [and] the return on investment is highly uncertain” for private enterprise to undertake alone. This insight remains true today. Pharmaceutical companies, for instance, might not invest billions studying obscure genes or molecular pathways unless government-funded labs first discover something promising. Tech companies often build on fundamental advances from university labs that no single firm would have pursued in-house without public support.
Government funding provides the steady, long-term investment that allows scientists to explore bold ideas and difficult questions. Breakthroughs can take many years to materialize. A researcher investigating the properties of a new material or the behavior of a newly discovered particle might spend a decade before a practical application appears – too long for most corporate R&D budgets focused on quarterly results. Public grants, on the other hand, enable this patience. They also support high-risk, high-reward research that might fail to find anything useful at all (which is a necessary part of the scientific process). The successful innovations that emerge – like the examples we discussed earlier – more than make up for the blind alleys, but someone has to be willing to fund exploration of unknown unknowns. Governments, backed by taxpayers who collectively benefit from scientific progress, are in the best position to do this.
Continued public investment in basic science is also a strategic imperative for any nation that wants to lead in the future. In a globalized world, technological leadership translates to economic and even geopolitical strength. Countries around the globe are ramping up science funding, recognizing that today’s research will drive tomorrow’s industries (from quantum computing to artificial intelligence to green energy). For the United States and other innovation-driven economies, maintaining robust funding for research is key to staying competitive. Cutting back now would risk ceding leadership in critical fields and “destroying a generation’s worth of scientific progress,” as one research policy expert warned. Moreover, challenges like climate change, emerging diseases, and cybersecurity loom large in the coming decades – we will need new knowledge and innovations to tackle them. That means investing in the fundamental science today that will enable solutions tomorrow.
Finally, beyond dollars and strategic outcomes, there is a broader societal value to basic research: it fuels human progress and knowledge itself. Curiosity about our world is a defining human trait. Government support for science is, in a sense, support for enlightenment and education. The discoveries from basic research inspire new generations of scientists and engineers, build human capital, and elevate our understanding of nature and ourselves. These intangible benefits – a healthier, smarter, more technologically advanced society – are hard to quantify, but they form the foundation of modern civilization. Publicly funded research ensures that the quest for knowledge continues in areas that may not have immediate commercial appeal but could profoundly shape the human future.
In conclusion, basic research is an investment in our collective future. It is the wellspring of new ideas that drive societal progress, the seed for technological innovations that improve our lives, and an engine of economic growth and competitiveness. History teaches that many of the most important breakthroughs come from pursuing knowledge without a specific goal – the very definition of basic science. The benefits of this approach are broad: longer and healthier lives, new industries and jobs, solutions to pressing problems, and an expanded understanding of the universe. While the private sector plays a vital role in developing and applying discoveries, it is government funding that enables the initial leaps into the unknown that are too uncertain or long-term for businesses to tackle. By continuing to fund basic research, governments act as stewards of discovery, ensuring that society reaps the rewards of innovation for generations to come. In an age where politicians like Trump are cutting research to reduce the deficit, this action seems nearsighted as basic research more than makes up for its cost when it comes down to government revenue.
The case for public investment in basic science is compelling. It rests on both practical and principled grounds: practically, such investment yields high returns, drives economic prosperity, and addresses societal challenges; principally, it upholds our commitment to progress and knowledge. As we look ahead to the breakthroughs yet to come – in medicine, energy, computing, and beyond – the support we give to fundamental research today will determine the world we live in tomorrow. In funding basic research, we are funding the next great discoveries that will shape a better future for all.
Note: This is my own opinion and not the opinion of my employer, State Street, or any other organization. This is not a solicitation to buy or sell any stock. My team and I use a Large Language Model (LLM) aided workflow. This allows us to test 5-10 ideas and curate the best 2-4 a week for you to read. Rest easy that we fact check, edit, and reorganize the writing so that the output is more engaging, more reliable, and more informative than vanilla LLM output. We are always looking for feedback to improve this process.
Additionally, if you would like updates more frequently, follow me on x: https://x.com/cameronfen1. In addition, feel free to send me corrections, new ideas for articles, or anything else you think I would like: cameronfen at gmail dot com.