The spirit of inquiry, always wanting to know "why",
must be the driving force behind your research. Isn't that right?
In my case, yes, because I'm not simply trying to clarify
the things in textbooks that we don't understand, but instead take
an intuitive approach, starting with some question close to us all
that the textbooks don't even touch on, so I don't have to do much
study. I actually enjoy my work a lot because of that.
In Real Clone there is a section that asks
the question, "Where
is basic research going?" The director of some hospital was
quoted as saying that basic research was all very well, but ultimately
unless it is of clinical use, has no point. You seemed to find
this
a little puzzling, being as it is the total opposite to your own
view. So, what is the point? Being in the business world myself,
my thoughts generally turn to what use can be made of something.
Most researchers in fundamental biochemistry do not imagine
that their work is going to help mankind in any way. They don't
go so far as to consider the applications. People might criticize
it as a waste of tax money, but the fact is that basic research
should be pursued without considering its applications per se. As
long as there are people ready to play the part of incubators, if
you like, who fully understand the basic research and can think
about how to apply it, that's fine. Surely it's best if the work
is split in this way.
You've made a good point. The translation research function,
which links basic research and clinical use, is essential for companies,
too.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| Genome reprogramming laboratory led by Dr. Wakayama at the RIKEN Kobe Institute, Center for Developmental Biology. Note the rows of microscopes. And, in a cabinet in one corner, a collection of toy mice! |
|
