BP and Basic Research

Of the countless number of lessons one might learn from the BP blowout in the Gulf, the lack of basic research is one lesson I have not heard anyone mention.

Industry, whether it is oil, food, forestry, or finance has been completely focused in the past few decades upon increasing production and revenue flow. I'm not sure if there is either an assumption that science has already done the basic research to support extending current technologies, or that there is just a belief that engineering and product design can circumvent any complication encountered. Well, it hasn't and it can't.

The BP blowout is a classic example of extending technology beyond what is known about the environment in which that technology is being applied. The fact that no one understood that gas hydrates would form within their first effort at containment was a certain indicator that this crisis was not going to be resolved quickly.

I'm guessing, that if the oil industry is like any other, they have been approached by scientists interested in establishing that basic understanding. I'm also guessing that industry wasn't interested in supporting that research because it did not directly translate into production and revenue flow. Government, heavily influenced by industry in directing their research funding, probably didn't see a need, or more specifically, an 'application,' either.

BP is just one example and I am left to wonder how many other examples we will see over the next few years. Funding for basic research is down everywhere.

In British Columbia, the provincial government has drastically reduced forestry research in the Ministry of Forests and Range. I'm thinking that they do not understand how basic research was aiding 'growth and yield.' As just one example, an entirely new bioenergy industry is emerging in British Columbia, but we know almost nothing about the ecology of the woody debris that they wish to remove for burning. The failures in these areas won't be as acutely dramatic as what is currently unfolding in the Gulf, but they could be just as damaging and even longer lasting.

YouTube Video Credit: UCBcomedy.com

Letting Down Science

I recall one day, while working on my Masters degree back in the 1980s at the Freshwater Institute (a research centre for the federal department of Fisheries and Oceans), noticing a piece of paper taped to a hall wall. When I took a closer look I saw it was a research application created by some bureaucrat down in the basement of the institute.  One line had been circled in black marker and read "Expected Results."  Scrawled over the rest of the form, in thick black marker, was "If I knew what the results were going to be, I wouldn't need to do the experiment!"  There may have been an expletive tossed in there somewhere.  The author of that scrawl was Dr. David Schindler, now Professor Emiterus at the University of Alberta, and a world leader in freshwater biology.  

That piece of paper was a lesson I never forgot.  It emphasized the difference between those who engage in science for the process of discovery, and those who use science as a loose means to an end.

The New York Times today reports on the case of Dr. Joseph Beiderman, a child psychologist at Harvard.  Dr. Beiderman received 1.6 million dollars in consulting fees from pharmaceutical companies between 2000 and 2007.  His research relating to the use of anti-psychotic drugs in young children is currently being investigated by both Harvard and the US National Institute of Health.  One fact that came up during his deposition reminded me of that piece of paper taped to the wall more than 20 years ago.

It seems that Dr. Biederman had given presentations to drug companies telling them what his results were going to be before he started clinical trials.   Apparently this made sense to both the drug companies and Dr. Biederman.

All I can say is that Dr. Biederman is no Dave Schindler.

Hat tip: Page Donaldson

Photo Credit: Me.