When I was doing research in a genetics lab during my undergrad I constantly heard about the benefits of doing science for the sake of science.  I believed in this principle and never questioned it.  Last week, after a Genome British Columbia forum in Vancouver, I began questioning this statement.

Dr. Carl Douglas answering questions at a Genome BC forum

Dr. Carl Douglas was a speaker at the forum, he is a a botanist at the University of British Columbia (UBC) and was there to discuss his research and the possibility of using poplar trees as biofuel.  It came up that, as his project is funded by Genome B.C., he is required to have a societal or ethical component to his science research.  As a result, Dr. Thomas Maness, a forest economist at UBC, is doing a feasibility study to determine how likely it is to grow poplar trees in B.C. as a form of fuel.

It occurred to me that this type of question should have always been a component of science, especially science aimed at providing the population with a tool or resource.  It made me question why it was never included before.  For example if Dr. Douglas’ research was wildly successful but no research had been done in the application of his science, how would a decision to fund such a large scale project be made?

On the most general level science is here to satisfy a certain curiosity.  It helps us to understand how our universe works around us.  But, we are only truly understanding how things work if we go beyond the basic science and discover how things work within the context of our society.  If we determine how to best use poplar trees as fuel, we also need to determine if B.C. can afford such a project and if these trees will grow well here.