Fundamental ecology is fundamental
Authors: Franck Courchamp, Jennifer A. Dunne, Yvon Le Maho, Robert M. May, Christophe Thébaud, Michael E. Hochberg
Journal: Trends in Ecology & Evolution (2014)

•Fundamental ecology is the basis for understanding our complex biological world.•Funding for fundamental research over the past few decades has been at lower levels than that for other major research categories.•We provide several ways forward to promote fundamental research in the future.•Promoting fundamental ecology is a multi-actor problem involving scientists, research institutions, funding bodies, and politicians. The primary reasons for conducting fundamental research are satisfying curiosity, acquiring knowledge, and achieving understanding. Here we develop why we believe it is essential to promote basic ecological research, despite increased impetus for ecologists to conduct and present their research in the light of potential applications. This includes the understanding of our environment, for intellectual, economical, social, and political reasons, and as a major source of innovation. We contend that we should focus less on short-term, objective-driven research and more on creativity and exploratory analyses, quantitatively estimate the benefits of fundamental research for society, and better explain the nature and importance of fundamental ecology to students, politicians, decision makers, and the general public. Our perspective and underlying arguments should also apply to evolutionary biology and to many of the other biological and physical sciences. The primary reasons for conducting fundamental research are satisfying curiosity, acquiring knowledge, and achieving understanding. Here we develop why we believe it is essential to promote basic ecological research, despite increased impetus for ecologists to conduct and present their research in the light of potential applications. This includes the understanding of our environment, for intellectual, economical, social, and political reasons, and as a major source of innovation. We contend that we should focus less on short-term, objective-driven research and more on creativity and exploratory analyses, quantitatively estimate the benefits of fundamental research for society, and better explain the nature and importance of fundamental ecology to students, politicians, decision makers, and the general public. Our perspective and underlying arguments should also apply to evolutionary biology and to many of the other biological and physical sciences. Fundamental ecology, or basic ecology, is the study of organismal diversity and of the interactions between organisms and their abiotic and biotic environments [1Begon M. et al.Ecology: From Individuals to Ecosystems.4th ed. Wiley–Blackwell, 2006Google Scholar]. Its main goal is to advance knowledge and understanding, and its results, even if sometimes predictable, are not known with certainty in advance. By contrast, applied ecology is usually motivated by particular, well-defined objectives, typically to solve environmental problems, including the management of natural resources such as land, energy, food, or biodiversity [2Bertelsmeier C. et al.Applied ecology.in: Hastings A. Gross L. Encyclopedia of Theoretical Ecology. University of California Press, 2012: 52-60Google Scholar]. Because applied ecology often involves the development of interventions to alter events (e.g., exotic species invasions, endemic species decline), this research is essentially an attempt to achieve a defined objective. Box 1 summarises the different types of research and Figure 1 presents a conceptual model of their relationships.Box 1Different types of researchWe define fundamental research as theoretical or experimental work undertaken primarily to acquire new knowledge of the underlying foundations of phenomena and observable facts without any particular application in view [14OECD The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities, Frascati Manual 2002: Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research and Experimental Development. OECD, 2002Crossref Google Scholar]. Fundamental ecology is therefore often exploratory and curiosity driven. By contrast, applied research focuses on finding solutions and improving them and is thus goal driven. The distinction in objectives is important. Conducting research with a specific goal in mind makes achieving it more likely but also reduces the chances of obtaining unexpected results, a major source of scientific discovery. Curiosity-driven research often challenges accepted thinking and may generate new fields of investigation. Applied research feeds to some extent on the outcomes of fundamental research (see Figure 1 in main text). However, basic and applied research are not entirely discrete alternatives but rather can be viewed as a continuum [14OECD The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities, Frascati Manual 2002: Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research and Experimental Development. OECD, 2002Crossref Google Scholar]. This is especially pertinent to ecological research, where fields such as conservation biology, fisheries science, or global-change biology often integrate both fundamental and applied perspectives.There are other, less discussed but nevertheless important research approaches. Development research aims to make products from newly discovered technologies. Strategic research is primarily directed towards understanding the fundamental basis of an applied, ultimate goal [Dos Remedios, C. (2000) The value of fundamental research. International Union for Pure and Applied Biophysics (http://iupab.org/publications/value-of-fundamental-research/)]. Finally, translational research seeks to rapidly transfer findings from fundamental research into practical applications of direct relevance to human needs. In contrast to applied research, which usually represents incremental improvements to current understanding, translational research strives to deliver breakthroughs, notably through the creative and multidisciplinary exploration of results from fundamental research. Most translational research is aimed at innovative, basic biological science to improve medicine, bypassing the typically long times separating basic research and concrete clinical application [39Horton B. From bench to bedside...research makes the translational transition.Nature. 1999; 402: 213-215Crossref PubMed Scopus (17) Google Scholar]. Ecology provides fertile grounds for translational research; for example, in conservation science. Unfortunately, translational research often competes for funding and attention with both fundamental and applied research, although its success obviously relies to a great extent on progress in the latter [48Zoghbi H.Y. The basics of translation.Science. 2013; 339: 250Crossref PubMed Scopus (15) Google Scholar]. In principle, the boundaries between all of these different types of research should be more porous, since they have the potential to interact and instruct in achieving their respective aims. We define fundamental research as theoretical or experimental work undertaken primarily to acquire new knowledge of the underlying foundations of phenomena and observable facts without any particular application in view [14OECD The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities, Frascati Manual 2002: Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research and Experimental Development. OECD, 2002Crossref Google Scholar]. Fundamental ecology is therefore often exploratory and curiosity driven. By contrast, applied research focuses on finding solutions and improving them and is thus goal driven. The distinction in objectives is important. Conducting research with a specific goal in mind makes achieving it more likely but also reduces the chances of obtaining unexpected results, a major source of scientific discovery. Curiosity-driven research often challenges accepted thinking and may generate new fields of investigation. Applied research feeds to some extent on the outcomes of fundamental research (see Figure 1 in main text). However, basic and applied research are not entirely discrete alternatives but rather can be viewed as a continuum [14OECD The Measurement of Scientific and Technological Activities, Frascati Manual 2002: Proposed Standard Practice for Surveys on Research and Experimental Development. OECD, 2002Crossref Google Scholar]. This is especially pertinent to ecological research, where fields such as conservation biology, fisheries science, or global-change biology often integrate both fundamental and applied perspectives. There are other, less discussed but nevertheless important research approaches. Development research aims to make products from newly discovered technologies. Strategic research is primarily directed towards understanding the fundamental basis of an applied, ultimate goal [Dos Remedios, C. (2000) The value of fundamental research. International Union for Pure and Applied Biophysics (http://iupab.org/publications/value-of-fundamental-research/)]. Finally, translational research seeks to rapidly transfer findings from fundamental research into practical applications of direct relevance to human needs. In contrast to applied research, which usually represents incremental improvements to current understanding, translational research strives to deliver breakthroughs, notably through the creative and multidisciplinary exploration of results from fundamental research. Most translational research is aimed at innovative, basic biological science to improve medicine, bypassing the typically long times separating basic research and concrete clinical application [39Horton B. From bench to bedside...research makes the translational transition.Nature. 1999; 402: 213-215Crossref PubMed Scopus (17) Google Scholar]. Ecology provides fertile grounds for translational research; for example, in conservation science. Unfortunately, translational research often competes for funding and attention with both fundamental and applied research, although its success obviously relies to a great extent on progress in the latter [48Zoghbi H.Y. The basics of translation.Science. 2013; 339: 250Crossref PubMed Scopus (15) Google Scholar]. In principle, the boundaries between all of these different types of research should be more porous, since they have the potential to interact and instruct in achieving their respective aims. One of the central objectives and achievements of fundamental ecology is to develop and test general theory in ecology [3Marquet P.A. et al.On theory in ecology.Bioscience. 2014; (Published online July 16, 2014. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/biosci/biu098)PubMed Google Scholar]. At the broadest level, a general theory is an entire domain of science and a set of interwoven fundamental principles, like the theory of evolution by natural selection [4Scheiner S.M. Willig M.R. A general theory of ecology.Theor. Ecol. 2007; 1: 21-28Crossref Scopus (83) Google Scholar]. Fundamental research is sometimes called pure science or 'blue-skies' research. The term blue-skies research has its roots in the idea of curiosity- and inquiry-driven studies (Box 1). It is said that under Eisenhower's presidency a prominent politician unsympathetic to basic research claimed 'I don't care what makes the grass green!', which was later rephrased as 'what makes the sky blue' [5Comroe J. What makes the sky blue?.Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 1976; 113: 219-222PubMed Google Scholar]. Interestingly, 50 years earlier, using vapours and light beams in glass tubes, Tyndall [6Linden B. Basic blue skies research in the UK: are we losing out?.J. Biomed. Discov. Collab. 2008; 3: 3Crossref PubMed Scopus (22) Google Scholar] explained the basis of the sky's colour and his work led to better and more effective processes and products unforeseen at the time of his discovery. These included a test for optically pure air, support for the nonexistence of spontaneous generation, particle filtering of lung airways, destruction of bacteria by Penicillium mould, and even the precursors of the flexible gastroscope and bronchoscope [6Linden B. Basic blue skies research in the UK: are we losing out?.J. Biomed. Discov. Collab. 2008; 3: 3Crossref PubMed Scopus (22) Google Scholar]. Financial support for fundamental research in ecology, like in many other disciplines, is highly competitive. Many perceive stasis or a continuous decline in support, but accurate numbers are difficult to obtain to substantiate general trends, since funding categorization can be open to alternative interpretations and data can be difficult to obtain. This perception that support, be it financial or moral, is not improving is worrisome for ecologists, for their science, and ultimately for society. Here we show how the predominant support for objective-driven, applied science is relatively recent and why, in conjunction with this, fundamental research has seen limited investment in both relative and absolute terms. We then advocate increased and less constraining support for basic ecology, by presenting the principal drivers of fundamental research and some of its main benefits, including the satisfaction of human curiosity, the quest to explain our world, the creation of scientific knowledge, and the often unintentional, more tangible, economic, social, and political outcomes, as well as many innovations. Finally, we present concrete propositions to promote further support for fundamental research in ecology. Historically, fundamental approaches have played a dominant role in scientific research, with discoveries of all kinds and importance being the trademark of fundamental scientific research, from Antiquity to the Age of Enlightenment. The recent surge in the growth of institutionalised applied research stems, in part, from political perspectives of the role of scientific research in society [7Duffy M.P. The Rothschild experience: health science policy and society in Britain.Sci. Technol. Hum. Values. 1986; 11: 68-78Google Scholar]. This has created a new market-oriented and objective-driven approach to science to respond to economic and societal expectations [6Linden B. Basic blue skies research in the UK: are we losing out?.J. Biomed. Discov. Collab. 2008; 3: 3Crossref PubMed Scopus (22) Google Scholar]. Before the industrial revolution, funding sources were very different from what they are today, coming from personal funds (scientists were often aristocrats, with education, money, and time), sponsorship from the less-educated nobility without the time or interest to do research themselves, or funding sought by the scientists from the public through experimental demonstrations or natural history displays – the famed 'cabinets of curiosities'. After the Industrial Revolution, the costs of scientific research changed scale and funding became more organised, often through universities. Over time, university funding has become more tied to governmental and private funding. Now, universities and research institutions often seek sources through tuition fees, patent licensing, endowments, private sponsorship, or alumni contributions [8Maass G. Funding of public research and development: trends and changes.OECD J. Budg. 2003; 3: 41-69Crossref Google Scholar]. As a result, and not unexpectedly, the emphasis of research is increasingly being based on the expectations of these funders and is thus more often expressed in terms of direct and immediate benefits to society. Some funding calls prioritise projects in which scientists associate with industry and most universities now adopt business models [6Linden B. Basic blue skies research in the UK: are we losing out?.J. Biomed. Discov. Collab. 2008; 3: 3Crossref PubMed Scopus (22) Google Scholar] and develop entrepreneurial centres to encourage related technology transfer [9Dudley J. Defending basic research.Nat. Photonics. 2013; 7: 7-8Crossref Scopus (10) Google Scholar]. The private sector typically seeks short-term (i.e., 1–4 years), low-risk returns on investment, which is incompatible with the unpredictability and long-term (typically decadal) nature of returns on basic research [Dos Remedios, C. (2000) The value of fundamental research. International Union for Pure and Applied Biophysics (http://iupab.org/publications/value-of-fundamental-research/)] [6Linden B. Basic blue skies research in the UK: are we losing out?.J. Biomed. Discov. Collab. 2008; 3: 3Crossref PubMed Scopus (22) Google Scholar]. Because private investors usually dislike uncertainty, fundamental research is still mostly supported by governmental institutions. Basic research is also increasingly funded by philanthropic foundations and wealthy personalities [8Maass G. Funding of public research and development: trends and changes.OECD J. Budg. 2003; 3: 41-69Crossref Google Scholar, 10Broad W.J. Billionaires with big ideas are privatizing American science.New York Times. 2014; (15 March): 1Google Scholar]. The approach of benefactors has changed from supporting small research projects to large-scale programmes and earmarked research networks such as, in our field, deep-ocean exploration in the search of giant squid or paleontological expeditions to find remains of Tyrannosaurus rex [10Broad W.J. Billionaires with big ideas are privatizing American science.New York Times. 2014; (15 March): 1Google Scholar]. In parallel, there is a recent trend towards smaller project budgets being sought directly from the public, through crowdfunding [11Wheat R.E. et al.Raising money for scientific research through crowdfunding.Trends Ecol. Evol. 2013; 28: 71-72Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (120) Google Scholar]. In both cases, there is thus an understandable concern that funded programmes can become idiosyncratic, at the expense of the coverage of a wider, less biased range of basic research topics. For example, of the US$19 billion of private funding for all research fields in 2006, nearly a quarter was spent on health-related topics, compared with less than 3% on basic biology, a considerable decrease compared with just a few years previously [12Anon. No science left behind.Nat. Neurosci. 2008; 11: 1117Crossref PubMed Scopus (4) Google Scholar].