Not sure whether this has been posted before, let me know. So here we go:

Right now, i'm doing a master degree research on industrial catalyst. The other day, caught a debate in a R&D forum; the speakers, Dr. Barjoyai and Dr. Kodi (in case anyone knows them) mentioned about the direction of research in our country. Both men stressed on discovering your core technology and the fundamentals of your research.

Their statement led me to think; which side is more important, the fundamental or commercialized research?

I know many would say strike a balance, but at the moment, i'm torn between both. The more i am into the research and literature reviews, the more i feel you need to take a side. If not, you'd never complete any research nor publish anything!

So fellow forumers, what's your take?

You do not have to take sides in the dispute on which is more important. It's a silly argument anyway. Both are necessary.

An example: which is more important, food or water? Yet nobody only drinks water and eat no food, or eat just dry food and drink no water. You need both.

Similarly, we need both kinds of research. "Strike a balance" is not bad advice. The country needs to strike a balance. But individual researchers do not need to. They can do whatever they like. You're not going to be the sole researcher in the entire country.

But practically, you do not get to choose. What you end up doing depends on what job you manage to snag.

Thanks for the reply.

I know it's silly, but at some point in life there isn't a choice. Take for instance, if i were to conduct a research, i would need fundings. In most cases, funders/financiers will demand for results (e.g. potential profit) from your project.

Like you've mentioned, researchers should be given the freedom to conduct fundamental researches which will benefit the society. However, when it comes to funding, it's dollar sense that people need justification before providing the funds for you, considering that how our cost-return economy is run.

And my point is, should researchers based/put weightage on commercial side of research?

There are no rights and wrongs in this issue. I would love to hear from you guys and have a healthy discussion.

hahaha..same like me...as a designer.

i design cos i like to be, but ppl pay u to do design for him, to make his ideas come true, not yours.

sometime client idea r suck, & they like to complaint this & that, i also want to design like want can suitable for the community based on design & usage. (like western country).

Malaysia designer r "priceless". Many free style artist eat roti saja, if u want car, house, then u must need to follow order, if not...then makan roti lo....

Impian tak boleh jadi nasi untuk makan....i'm sure many ppl (designer, engineer, resercher) also face this issue.

What more can i do, i also need makan de...unless your father very rich...so, now need to find the balancing of it, life is like that de...

good luck & cheer..

Yeah agreed. However, some designs can be completed in a short time, if you're good at it.

For researches, the most minimum time to complete a project is a year, on average two years. How to survive on bread and water for that period?

I think the fundamental research is more important isn't it?

monetary system has corrupt into many aspect of our life..

tobacco companies pay for research which concludes that smoking does not cause cancer, pharmaceutical companies do the same to validate that the drugs they are pushing do no harm, and politicians enlist polling firms that validate their "lead" in the polls.

The statement above explains alot.

That is why this discussion is an open ended, Angela. No one can judge which research is more important.

I was hoping for a continuous discussion on this hot topic, but the response was lukewarm. Anyhow, thanks Rahizan and Angela for the feedbacks.