Useful Uselessness

At a recent meeting of the advancement community of The Grainger College of Engineering at the University of Illinois, Dean Rashid Bashir recommended we read Abraham Flexner’s essay “The Usefulness of Useless Knowledge” to understand the importance of our college’s research enterprise, so I did.

Flexner’s essay was published in Harper’s Weekly in 1939, in the eve of World War 2.  His opening statement is alarmingly applicable today:

Is it not a curious fact that in a world steeped in irrational hatreds which threaten civilization itself, men and women—old and young—detach themselves wholly or partly from the angry current of daily life to devote themselves to the cultivation of beauty, to the extension of knowledge, to the cure of disease, to the amelioration of suffering, just as though fanatics were not simultaneously engaged in spreading pain, ugliness, and suffering?

Flexner promotes basic research for its own sake, resisting the urge to say they every project needs an application.  Rather research he contends should thrive purely on the basis of our curiosity.  Flexner argues first from a pragmatic point of view with a few examples.  Marconi for instance is hailed for inventing the first radio system.  Flexner characterizes Marconi, though, as a clever inventor (Nobel prize not withstanding) filling in the last technical details derived from the basic research of pioneers Maxwell and Hertz.  Flexner claims Maxwell’s work on electromagnetic theory and Hertz’ proof of the existence of electromagnetic waves were the result of pure curiosity absent any motivation for an application.  Flexner provides other examples to build his case that “most of the really great discoveries which had ultimately proved to be beneficial to mankind had been made by men and women who were driven not by the desire to be useful but merely the desire to satisfy their curiosity.”  The role of educational institutions should be devoted to the cultivation of curiosity rather than the ever-present search for the next killer app.

Flexner’s second approach is more lofty arguing that only through removing the shackles of usefulness can we really achieve our greatest potential.  These are humanistic ideals not frequently spoken today.  It is curiosity and imagination that allows the human spirit to soar.  Indeed, Flexner states that we need to abolish the word “use” to set the human spirit free.  Flexner provides examples of the almost serendipitous nature of discovery due to “fooling around”, playing with concepts out of curiosity rather than a structured pursuit of an application.  Flexner closes the essay with a description of the Institute of Advanced Studies which he founded as a “paradise for scholars” driven only by their curiosity.  Flexner’s pragmatic argument is to placate the powers that demand impact.  He needs no such rationalization.  The academic ideal, the elevation of the human spirit, is sufficient for Flexner.

The Princeton University Press 2017 edition includes a companion essay by the current director of the Institute, Robbert Dijkgraaf.  This twenty-first century essay precedes Flexner’s piece to provide historical context and continued evidence of the correctness of Flexner’s pragmatic argument on the amazing advances in more modern times from basic research, e.g., “30 percent of the U.S. gross national product is based on inventions made possible by quantum mechanics.”  Dijkgraaf speaks with a modern voice lacking the idealism of the early twentieth century, promoting the terms applied and “not-yet-applied” research rather the useful or useless knowledge.  This conjecture that every advance has in the end some application runs counter to Flexner’s free-spirited approach to research. 

For those of us engaged in fundraising for research institutions, Dijkgraaf has five points to counter constituents that feel the institution is too theoretical:

1. Basic research advances knowledge in and of itself (which is a good thing).

2. Pathbreaking research leads to new tools and techniques, often in unpredictable and indirect ways.

3. Curiosity-driven research attracts the very best minds in the world.

4. Much of the knowledge developed by basic research is made publicly accessible and so benefits society.

5. Many start-up companies and whole industries are outgrowths of basic research. 

Dijkgraaf does move a bit away from utilitarian pragmatism.  Scientific research is based on skills that should be adopted by society such as the pursuit of truth, critical questioning, and the respect for facts.  Dijkgraaf does not have a solution to the shift of research funding from public to industrial sources currently squeezing out basic research.  He promotes the need for the public scientist as typified by Einstein to help communicate the intent of scientific pursuits.  Dijkgraaf seems to be asking himself, though, “How does one articulate a potential outcome of an idea without at the same time boxing it in?

Knowledge is boxed in when we apply a measure, whether it's return on investment, time to market, or another form of economic relevance.   We must remember Flexner’s non-pragmatic arguments to allow the ideas to flow where they will and purely for their own sake.  A society that embraces research as simply an investment portfolio will undoubtedly miss out on something, be it practical or not, and thereby become less of what it could have been.  The full potential is unleashed by viewing the useless as useful.

Source
Abraham Flexner. The Usefulness of Useless Knowledge. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2017.