2 Why the distinction between basic ( theoretical ) and applied ( practical ) research is important in the politics of science

The term “basic research” is ubiquitous in present debates on policy in science and higher education. It is a term with positive connotations, important for example in legitimising traditional universities. The popular term “researc h” generally corresponds to “research and development” (R&D) in official statistics. This inc ludes “applied research” and “technological development” as well as “basic resea rch.” In public discourse these distinctions are regularly overlooked. “Research” s imply includes” the whole of R&D. The public neglect of the differences corresponds to a trend in science studies. Within present historical, philosophical, sociological, economic, etc. studies of science and technology there is a strong tendency to play down the difference be twe n applied and basic research, or between science and technology, or explicitly to re ject it as relevant to the politics or governance of science. This paper argues that more respect for these differences would improve the chances of developing a politics of sci en e to serve society as a whole and not only the special interests of certain groups, be th ey private enterprises, political movements, particular religions, the scientific community, or others. Introduction This paper aims to recover and demonstrate the pres nt relevance of an understanding of basic science that was still widely taken for granted hal f a century ago. It was then often called “pure science” or simply “science.” On this view tr uthfulness is the root value and scientific research is perceived as a search for truth that ou ght to be as free as possible from the