We must fund intellectual infrastructure for the long term › Problems with the bimodal theory/practice cycle [013M]

The bimodal “practice—then theory—then practice” model presupposed by the dichotomy between traditional research grants and focused research organisations and other short-term “moon-shots” neglects the dialectical interplay between theory and practice, in ways that can have real consequences for human intellectual advancement. Indeed, it seems to me that the model of dividing funding between traditional research grants and FROs is based on the idea that progress occurs in a two step cycle:

1. First the “real science” reaches the point where it is strong enough that it could be applied in a practical way, but this application would be impossible to achieve within the research grant funding model.
2. So an FRO is spun up to pick up where the science left off, and develop the application to the point that it can be practically adopted in institutions and industry.
3. (Repeat!)

I do not think that the cycle above can lead to sustainable intellectual infrastructure, which requires (1) a more responsive interplay between theory and practice, and (2) long-term continuity of lessons and advances that cannot be achieved on the current model of “once or twice per decade post-mortems” in the form of successive research grant and FRO proposals.