No, no, no ... a thousand times, no! There is no such thing as applied science. There is only the application of science, which is very easy to anyone who is the master of the theory of it.

So exclaimed Louis Pasteur—French chemist, biologist, and bacteriologist—in a speech delivered in1872. He was continuing on a theme begun at least a year earlier, when he wrote, in Revue scientifique: “There does not exist a category of science to which one can give the name applied science. There are science and the applications of science, bound together as the fruit of the tree that bears it” (Pasteur 1871).

Despite Pasteur’s admonition, there remains today a too-handy distinction between so-called “basic” scientists, whose questions may originate from some (apparently) esoteric observations (say, What limits clutch size in birds?), and “applied” scientists, whose questions may originate from some (apparently) urgent problem (say, to stem a long-term decline in clutch size of a particular species of bird, lest it increase the risk of extinction). To exacerbate the situation, by this too-simple classification, basic scientists are often considered to engage in the objective pursuit of cold, hard facts (to be “less subject to subjectivism,” to borrow from Lewis Thomas (1983) in Late Night Thoughts on Listening to Mahler’s Ninth Symphony); to inhabit the hallowed halls of academe; and to publish only in certain refereed journals. Applied scientists, on the other hand, are supposed to work for industry, government, or non-government organizations, and to publish in other journals; their science might be tainted by profit or emotion. ...View full editorial: [English HTML] [Français HTML] [PDF]

photo credit: Claude Nadeau