Some others mentioned this in their post, but I also do not think that all industry research is what you may call applied research and development, and all academia does basic research. I have friends in PhD programs working on products that they will play a part in designing over the course of their PhD and are completing experiments with it to show what they created will bring the field forward. I personally enjoy basic and applied research and could happily do either upon graduation. My current research in Traumatic Brain Injury is more basic because in order to develop treatments down the line to help people, we need to understand what is occurring and how we can target specific pathways and cells to promote better outcomes. Upon graduation, I will be a quality assurance engineer testing out new products and comparing them to what is currently in use; this will put numbers behind design changes to determine if it is worth continuing down that path and what could be better. This research would allow me to play a small role in giving design ideas and suggestions based on the performance of the device used by individuals that will be using the new equipment.
Do you think there is any benefit to moving around in different engineering roles (i.e., quality assurance, regulatory, research and development ) or switching between types of research (basic or applied)? I like changes like this to continue learning and growing as an engineer, but there are many pros to becoming an "expert" in the field and type of research or design you do.
As mentioned, I believe that both forms of research hold great importance and are necessities in the field. Research in academia is known to have made huge discoveries that required extensive amounts of contributions from various research professionals. Most professionals in academic research spend their lifetime in an attempt to make a discovery that concludes in only being a few puzzle pieces of the bigger picture. On the other hand, as mentioned, research in industry presents immediate results. While I do think that academic research is extremely important in making larger discoveries, I would prefer industry research where I'm able to see a research project from beginning to end.
In industry, research is done to make discoveries for products that can help people right away, while in academia, research create results for the long run. I feel that both types of research are important and necessary. However, I am more interested in doing research that will have beneficial results right away. I would like to see the results of my research being used right away, rather than passing on my research to someone else to continue and one day make a discovery. Would you rather do research that would result in making discoveries to help future generations or the current generation, and why? Which do you think is more important?
I want to make discoveries that will help the current and future generations. However, if I had to choose between one or the other, I would choose industry because it will give me a sense that I did something great for this generation, and hopefully, it can advance research for future generations as well. This will also lead to a higher position in the company and more money in the short term. The industry is more for people looking to have a set schedule without working over the weekend and have more fast cash. However, academia is for people who want to research topics in which they are more interested in and be able to publish and write their own papers.
Both current and future generations stand to benefit from both present and future research discoveries, and it is difficult to prioritize one over the other. Research that helps the current generation can lead to immediate improvements in health, quality of life, and social and economic progress. On the other hand, research that helps future generations can lead to long-term benefits, such as sustainability, preservation of natural resources, and prevention of future health and social problems. I personally believe that current research discoveries are more important because it allows us to have a solid foundation to build upon. Focusing too much on the future will cause there to not be any current advancement and have all research feeling out of grasp. Even though I prefer current research I believe that the best approach is a balance between the two. That way research can take both small and large strides. In general, the long-term benefits of research for future generations should be taken into account when prioritizing research topics and funding. However, this does not mean that research for immediate benefits should be disregarded. Rather, both short-term and long-term benefits should be considered, and research should be conducted in a balanced and thoughtful way to maximize its potential benefits for all generations. Ultimately, the goal of research should be to improve the lives of all people, both now and in the future.
This is an excellent question! It's a chicken and egg type of situation. I would make discoveries for future generations to calm because it is more impactful. However, I must acknowledge that there is only a future generation with the current generation. I do not see That either or is more important, but it depends on the situation. Some topics and studies need to go a lot longer while others are made for now because that is the problem we are facing in the world. A great example of this disease is a win-win-win creating a vaccine or antibiotic since it will help the people now and in the future. It all just depends on the circumstances. Handling this on a case by case bases is the best way do avoid problems in the long run.
Research conducted for both long-term and short-term application are both beneficial and necessary. If we look at it from the standpoint that research deemed “short-term” requires less time due to the fact that there has likely been previous research conducted to support what is to come. For example, in industry, short-term research may be conducted to address an issue in the field and develop a revised product, marketing material, etc. However, that can only be done leveraging the information that has been previously executed for the device or drug in the past.
On the other hand, there is research in industry that has been ongoing for years which could be to develop a new product altogether or by extensively redesigning an existing product to meet current demand and customer needs.
One question that I would pose is: How often does research in academia cross-over to industry and vice-versa? Is it possible to categorize research solely academia based that is not likely to cross into industry? What are some examples?
I believe there is a place for both research now and the future. Its always nice to see your research help now. You get to see the results and you get to get the praise. Its a win win situation for yourself and for the people you have helped. But unfortunately a lot of things we need to fix in this world is not there just yet with the technology we have. We need to pre plan and create small partial discoveries that can be used for when we have the technology to make it to the next step.
Ultimately my dream is to contribute to a scientific discovered that will remain significant for future generations. However, I understand that take time, experience, and dedication. I have been considering my own path in work in industry first to build a foundation of experience, capital, and an immediate contribution to society. That will propel me into a career in academia later in my life, to turn my dream into fruition.
I agree, both academia research and industry research are important and necessary. I would much rather do research that helps the current generation. I am interested in doing genetic research, and I want to see the discoveries I may make as well as the ideas I help bring to life, change lives now so I get to witness. I feel as though a major part of it is wanting to see that my work had purpose and was worth something. I would not be able to bare leaving my work behind for someone else to finish. I do not think one is more important than the other because I feel as though the overall benefits of research in academia versus industry is relative. Certain discoveries may take longer to bring to light and be more beneficial going the academic route, while certain discoveries can be attained quicker and are needed as soon as possible. Both routes have their own importance in science.
I believe it is more important to start research that future generations can help carry out. I can understand wanting my findings in my research to be put to use right away but knowing the uncertainty that comes with experimenting I know that the best discoveries come from research that has the chance to evolve with time. I personally think if I am constantly putting out results all the time part of the passion for researching is lost because the perspective on generational discoveries no longer exists to you.
There is value in both types of research, as they are both important to future contributions to the field. In my experience, I would rather do research that I am able to see have an impact in my lifetime. This aligns with the industry mentality of completing projects to solve a specific, current need. The idea of conducting research that is more focused on future applications is more of a theme in academia. Completing projects that have more of a near-term impact could still have a future impact, as it could shape the foundation for future discoveries. Completing research that has an immediate impact can cause the individual to feel a sense of satisfaction for their work and also result in them striving to continue research. For research that an individual will not get to see make a contribution to the field within their lifetime, it could result in them feeling discouraged about the quality of their research. This, however, varies depending on the individual. Some are willing to contribute to the larger picture, even if they are not able to see it.
I think the correct answer is both. It is important to find answer's to today questions. Additionally, those answers might help with both current and future research. The same can be said for doing future research. However, industry is more focused on making profit, now. Which, is why you probably observed that they are more focused on investing in research for today's questions, problems, concerns, etc.
This is definitely a matter up to personal preference, but personally, I would rather work for the present. While I do understand the appeal of working for the future, I personally believe that the best advances happen in steps that build off of one another. For me, it does not seem practical to continue working on one project longitudinally for 20 years when the same project could be broken down into smaller parts that are released in phases over the same period of time. Also, from my personal experience, I've found that people who have been in academic research with limited short-term potential are less patient with their students, which in turn lowers productivity in their labs. For this reason, I personally would rather work for the present, but see the appeal of working for the future among people who are naturally patient.
I also agree with most of the comments above that research is important for today as well as for the future. I personally would prefer to work on research that could make a breakthrough for today's generation because I would like to see my invention help people. But at the same time, I can do research that could benefit future generations if there is a topic that is very interesting to me, for example research on mapping and controlling genes that affect human aging.
