Sir

The benefit of supporting basic research has been increasingly questioned in recent years. Funding agencies in Europe and elsewhere favour applied research, some even appearing to assume that basic research is a luxury that can be done without.

One important argument in favour of basic research, however, is that it consistently yields surprises that in turn are converted into products and even whole new industry sectors, and that, without such continuous innovation, the ensuing stagnation will be damaging to the health and economic strength of society. In the life sciences, the development of monoclonal antibodies and the biotechnology industry are good examples.

But how much basic research is needed to produce the occasional result that goes beyond ‘knowledge expansion’ and achieves ‘usefulness’? The data are sparse, but could be crucial in allowing policy-makers to arrive at more informed decisions. One source of information is the practical consequences of work carried out by scientists who have received grants to do basic research.

The European Molecular Biology Organization (EMBO), which is supported by more than 20 European countries, is well placed to obtain this information, as it has an established postdoctoral fellowship programme where the awards are made solely on the scientific quality of the research proposal. A survey of the career paths of those awarded EMBO fellowships in 1984 and 1985 (see Nature 388, 416; 1997) has been extended to ask whether the research carried out during the fellowship had knowledge as its only outcome, or whether it also led to new products, or ideas for new products.

Of the 120 individuals surveyed, 80 replied, of whom 40% provided examples of practical consequences arising from their basic research. Even making the extreme assumption that the work of all the non-responders resulted only in abstract knowledge, there were still more than 27.5% who could list practical or applied consequences of their work. The list covers all areas of biotechnology, and can be viewed at the EMBO Web site (http://www.embo.org). Seven projects gave rise to patents, and many in the 33 examples are of obvious and direct importance in biotechnology today.

Given the outcome of this survey, and the fact that projects that receive EMBO support are judged only on the quality of the science, we should perhaps reassess policies that attempt to move a significant portion of research into areas justified on the basis of their projected applied outcome. It may be more important to allow decisions on grants to focus on the quality of the research and the researcher, and to ensure that those making the decisions are leaders in the scientific community. Selecting projects because of the promised practical outcome may have the least long-term input to the industries they wish to support.