Fundamental Sciences and Fundamental Medicine

Cover Page

Cite item


An analytic paper discusses current understanding of the status and the role of fundamental and applied research and specifically of medical science for the socio-economic development of society. The related concept of scientific development is presented; classification and definitions used by UNESCO and other international and national organizations of different countries including the Russian Federation are given. The unique role of medicine science that is mostly related to the category of strategic basic research and is aimed at understanding the fundamental basis of applied ultimate goal is debated. Research is now recognized as a major component of innovation and the key to the development of modern society. Attention is drawn to the fact that future breakthrough technologies grow from today’s innovative ideas and achievements of fundamental and applied sciences. The fact that the funding of applied research provides tangible benefits in the short term is determined to be significant. At the same time sustainable public investment in basic research (seemed to be unprofitable) is a crucial factor for the socio-economic development of any country and a reasonable measure in the long term.

About the authors

M. V. Zueva

Moscow Helmholtz Research Institute of Eye Diseases, Moscow

Author for correspondence.
PhD Russian Federation


  1. What is basic research? National Science Foundation (NSF). Third Annual Report [Internet]. Retrieved 2014-05-31 [cited 2016 Jan 13]. Available from:
  2. International Basic Sciences Programme: Harnessing cooperation for capacity building in science and the use of scientific knowledge. IBSP: What it is, what is it does. UNESCO Natural Sciences Sector Division of Basic and Engineering Sciences. Issue 1. Paris; 2008. Available from:
  3. Доклад научного совета международной программы по фундаментальным наукам. Акты Генеральной Конференции 36-й сессии [интернет]. Париж; 2011 [доступ от 13.01.2016]. Доступ по ссылке: [Doklad nauchnogo soveta mezhdunarodnoy programmy po fundamental’nym naukam. Akty General’noy Konferentsii 36-y sessii [internet]. Paris; 2011 [Access on 13.01.2016]. Available on URL: (in Russ)]
  4. Федеральный закон Российской Федерации № 127-ФЗ от 23 августа 1996 г. «О науке и государственной научно-технической политике». [Federal Law of the Russian Federation № 127-FZ of 21 August 1996. «O nauke i gosudarstvennoi nauchno-tekhnicheskoi politike». (In Russ).] Доступно по ссылке: Ссылка активна на 13.01.2016.
  5. The Value of Basic Scientific Research [Internet]. The International Council for Science Statement. ICSU. 2004 [cited 2016 Jan 13]. Available from:
  6. Petit JC. Why do we need fundamental research? Eur Rev. 2004;12(2):191−207. doi: 10.1017/s1062798704000195.
  7. Распоряжение Правительства Российской Федерации № 2237- р от 3 декабря 2012 г. «Об утверждении Программы фундаментальных научных исследований государственных академий наук на 2013-2020 гг.». [Government Executive Order of the Russian Federation № 2237-r of 3 December 2012. «Ob utverzhdenii Programmy fundamental’nykh nauchnykh issledovanii gosudarstvennykh akademii nauk na 2013-2020». (In Russ).]
  8. National Security Decision Directive 189 (NSDD 189) [Internet]. National Policy on the Transfer of Scientific, Technical and Engineering Information. 1985 [cited 2016 Jan 13]. Available from:
  9. 15 CFR 734.8 – Information resulting from fundamental research. Legal Information Institute, Cornell University Low School [cited 2016 Jan 13]. Available from:
  10. Part 734 — Scope of the Export Administration Regulations. 2014 [cited 2016 Jan 13]. Available from:
  11. McCormick J. Scientific medicine ― fact or fiction? The contribution of science to medicine. Occas Pap R Coll Gen Pract. 2001;80:3–6.
  12. Davis B. The scientist’s world. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2000;64(1):1–12. doi: 10.1128/MMBR.64.1.1-12.2000.
  13. Fincher R-ME, Wallach PM, Richardson WS. Basic Science Right, Not Basic Science Lite: Medical Education at a Crossroad. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(11):1255-1258. doi: 10.1007/s11606-009-1109-3.
  14. Eisenberg L. Science in medicine: Too much or too little and too limited in scope? Am J Med. 1988;84(3 Pt. 1):483–491. doi: 10.1016/0002-9343(88)90270-7.
  15. Clarke JN, Arnold S, Everest M, et al. The paradoxical reliance on allopathic medicine and positivist science among skeptical audiences. Soc Sci Med. 2007;64(1):164–173. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.08.038.
  16. Bayertz K, Nevers P. Biology as technology. Clio Med. 1998;48:108–132.
  17. Pickstone JV, Worboys M. Focus: Between and beyond «Histories of science» and «Histories of medicine». Isis. 2011;102(1):97–101. doi: 10.1086/658658.
  18. King LS. Medicine in the USA: Historical vignettes: XI: Medicine seeks to be ‘scientific. 'JAMA. 1983;249(18):2475–2479. doi: 10.1001/jama.249.18.2475.
  19. Marshall T. Scientific knowledge in medicine: A new clinical epistemology? J Eval Clin Pract. 1997;3(2):133–138. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2753.1997.00075.x.
  20. Ortega y Gasset J. The Mission of the University. London: Kegan Paul; 1946.
  21. dos Remedios С. The Value of Fundamental Research. Sydney: The University of Sydney; 2006.
  22. Guimaraes F. Research: Anyone Can Do It. Mainz: Pedia Press; 2011. 343 p.
  23. Kjelstrup S. Basic and applied research in the university ― have they changed? OECD Workshop on basic research: policy relevant definitions and measurement [Internet]. Oslo; 2001[cited 2016 Jan 13]. Available from:
  24. Calvert J, Martin BR. Changing conceptions of basic research? SPRU ― Science and Technology Policy Research. Background Document for the Workshop on Policy Relevance and Measurement of Basic Research [Internet]. Oslo; 2001 [cited 2016 Jan 13]. Available from: A Vision for Vision. NIHR Biomedical Research Centre for Ophthalmology [Internet]. Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and UCL Institute of Ophthalmology. 2010 [cited 2016 Jan 13]. Available from:
  25. Della Malva A, Kechtermans S, Leten B, et al. Basic science as a prescription for breakthrough inventions in the pharmaceutical industry. J Technol Transf. 2015;40:670–695. doi: 10.1007/s10961-014-9362-y.
  26. Munos BH, Chin WW. How to Revive Breakthrough Innovation in the Pharmaceutical Industry. Science translational medicine. 2011;3(89):89cm16. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3002273.
  27. Narin F, Hamilton K, Olivastro D. The increasing linkage between US technology and public science. Research Policy. 1997;26:317–330. doi: 10.1016/s0048-7333(97)00013-9.
  28. Cockburn I, Henderson R. Absorptive capacity, coauthoring behavior, and the organization of research in drug discovery. J Ind Econ. 1998;46(2):157–182. doi: 10.1111/1467-6451.00067.
  29. Teece DJ, Pisano G, Shuen A. Dynamic capabilities and strategic management. Strat Mgmt J. 1997;18(7):509–533. doi: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0266(199708)18:7<509::aid-smj882>;2-z.
  30. Lim K. The relationship between research and innovation in the semiconductor and pharmaceutical industries (1981-1997). Research Policy. 2004;33:287–321. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2003.08.001.
  31. Karle J. The Role of Science and Technology in Future Design [Internet]. Nobel Media AB; 2014. [cited 2016 Jan 13]. Available from:
  32. Нероев В.В., Зуева М.В., Катаргина Л.А. Прорывные технологии в офтальмологии: фундаментальные науки в решении проблем патологии сетчатки и зрительного нерва // Российский офтальмологический журнал. – 2013. – Т.6. – №2. С. 4−8. [Neroev VV, Zueva MV, Katargina LA. Breakthrough technologies in ophthalmology: fundamental sciences helping to solve the problems of retinal and optic nerve pathologies. Rossiiskii oftal’mologicheskii zhurnal. 2013;6(2):4−8. (In Russ).]
  33. Зуева М.В. Фундаментальная офтальмология: роль электрофизиологических исследований // Вестник офтальмологии. – 2014. – Т. 130. – №6. – С. 28−36. [Zueva MV. Fundamental ophthalmology: the role of electrophysiological studies. Vestnik oftal’mologii. 2013;130(6):28–36. (In Russ).]
  34. Lambe EK, Aghajanian GK. Using Basic Electrophysiology to Understand the Neurobiology of Mental Illness. NY: Oxford University Press; 2011.

Comments on this article

Copyright (c) 2016 "Paediatrician" Publishers LLC

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies