This is with reference to the two consecutive editorials, 'Big science, small science' (Curr. Sci., 2001, 81, 133-134) and 'Lost innocence' (Curr. Sci., 2001, 81, 229-230). To me, it appears that 'big science' or 'applied science' cannot come into existence unless 'small and basic science' is created first. Consequently, only 'small and basic science', or 'science' to be more precise, is the terminology that needs to be used. The editor is absolutely correct when he says, 'Would it not have been better tor the academy to limit its domain to conventional academic science and avoid straying into the difficult waters of strategic science and technology'. But then, who cares for etiquette. The very fact that Balaram, a genuine scientist to the core and staunch supporter of 'basic science', himself has used the word 'big science' to describe the so-called applied science being practised under the handful of mega schemes which are eating the bulk of the meagre funds available for research these days, tells a lot about the direction of the wind. Like anything else, science has become a commodity and the importance of scientific research is not judged merely on its merit or its contribution to the welfare of mankind in the long run; instead it is judged by its glamour and apparent gains, both socio-political and otherwise. If so, the priorities are bound to be decided accordingly. No wonder, therefore, that 'big science' has robbed the naivetd of the academy.
展开▼
机译：这是参考两个连续的社论，“大科学，小科学”（Curr。Sci。，2001，81，133-134）和“ Lost innocnoence”（Curr。Sci。，2001，81，229-230） 。在我看来，除非首先创建“小型和基础科学”，否则“大科学”或“应用科学”似乎不存在。因此，仅需要使用“小型基础科学”或更确切地说是“科学”。这位编辑绝对正确，当他说：“将学院的领域限制在传统的学术科学领域，避免逃避进入战略科学和技术的艰辛之境时，这不是最好的选择吗？”但是后来，谁在乎礼节呢。巴拉兰姆是“基础科学”的核心和坚定支持者的真正科学家，他本人使用“大科学”一词来描述所谓的应用科学，这种应用科学是在少数正在吞噬人类的大型计划中实践的。这些天可用于研究的大量微薄资金充分说明了风向。就像其他任何事物一样，科学已经成为商品，从长远来看，科学研究的重要性不仅仅取决于其优点或对人类福祉的贡献。相反，它是由它的魅力和明显的收获（无论是在社会政治方面还是在其他方面）来判断的。如果是这样，则优先级必然要相应地确定。因此，难怪“大科学”抢夺了该学院的天真。
展开▼
