Why does the Foundation concentrate its support on basic rather than applied research? Basic research is the very heart of science, and its cumulative product is the capital of scientific progress, a capital that must be constantly increased as the demands upon it rise. The goal of basic research is understanding, for its own sake. Understanding of the structure of the atom or the nerve cell, the explosion of a spiral nebula(星云)or the distribution of cosmic dust, the causes of earthquakes and droughts, or of man as a behaving creature and of the social forces that are created whenever two or more human beings come into contact with one another-the scope is shocking, but the commitment to truth is the same. If the commitment were to a particular result, conflicting evidence might be overlooked or with the best will in the world, simply not appreciated. Moreover, the practical applications of basic research frequently cannot be anticipated. When Roentgen, the physicist, discovered X-rays, he had no idea of their usefulness to medicine.
     Applied research, undertaken to solve specific practical problems, has an immediate attractiveness because the results can be seen and enjoyed. For practical reasons, the sums spent on applied research in any country always far exceed those for basic research, and the proportions are more unequal in the less developed countries. Leaving aside the funds devoted to research by industry-which is naturally far more concerned with applied aspects because these increase profits quickly--the funds the U.S. Government allots to basic research currently amount to about 7 percent of its overall research and development funds. Unless adequate safeguards are provided, applied research invariably tends to drive out basic. Then as Dr. Waterman has pointed out, "Developments will inevitably be undertaken prematurely career incentives will gravitate strongly toward applied science, and the opportunities for making major scientific emphasis upon pure science tend to degrade the quality of the nation’s technology in the long run, rather than to improve it.”