Science – pure or basic – was the focus of the “Pure and Applied Research in the Moral Sciences” (in Italian) report presented during the Aspen seminar “The Future of Pure Science: the Case for Moral Sciences”. Pure science embraces every type of scientific research that is untethered to a specific objective. Moreover, the values and features that characterize science – curiosity, creativity and critical thinking – make no distinction between the natural sciences and other “hard” and “soft” sciences.
As emerged in the previous Aspen report “In Favor of Pure Science”, the importance of pure science calls for a new humanistic culture capable of redefining the links between the two cultures, founded both on critical thinking and on the assumption that the sciences have no clearly defined disciplinary confines and must necessarily foster interdisciplinary collaboration.
To assert that there is no substantial difference between cultural and natural sciences from the standpoint of the values of research does not mean ignoring differences in paradigm, method and object of study. The moral sciences are oriented toward knowledge of the individual and of the society, while the “hard” sciences study the physical and natural world. Nevertheless, their common feature is, and will remain, the need to apply methodologies that permit the reduction of bias to a minimum.
The problem that the scientific community locates at the center of this debate concerns the lack of investments in basic science despite proof that pure research has been effective in steering applied research toward practical results. While this lack is obvious in the physical and natural sciences, it is even more so in others, leaving soft sciences’ contribution to pure research sorely underestimated.
Pure research’s essential function in the moral sciences involves facilitating the promotion and optimization of an understanding of cause and effect with regard to global political concerns, along with the ability to assess policies for the governance of certain phenomena.
A concrete example: A good number of the United Nations 2030 Agenda items – abolishing poverty and hunger, defense and sponsorship of health, support for education and inclusion, reduction of inequality, gender equality, to name a few – call for broad-based, in-depth theoretical/empirical study and expansion of knowledge in the moral and social sciences. At the same time, as underscored by the 2024 Global Risks Report of the World Economic Forum, the majority of global threats such as disinformation, IT insecurity, social polarization and migration – just to start with – are of a socio-political-economic nature.
Another aspect of support for research in the social and moral sciences concerns the defense of democratic values and institutions and of the open society that views the individual person and the community as complex realities not to be reduced, for example, to arbitrary distinctions between a “good” populace and the “corrupt” privileged.
Finally, the appeal for broad-based support for basic research extended to all the sciences becomes even more significant in this era of artificial intelligence. Indeed, the current digital revolution calls for multidisciplinary research that offers decision-makers the necessary tools by which to govern rather than merely tolerate transformation.
It is precisely the challenges posed by AI that highlight the urgency of investing in research and education, in the promotion of a more open approach to science, adequate governance and the integrity of all those involved in the collective process of “discovery”.
Other paradigmatic examples examined included the way, for instance, in which decision-making theories and rationality have influenced empirical economics studies; or the strategic impact of pure science on analyses of socially relevant issues such as technical/scientific development, transformations in human labor and, finally, international migration dynamics.
In addition to encouraging adequate public and private basic research funding, participants made several other important recommendations: the adoption of measurement criteria that go beyond immediate results; support for “STEAM” disciplines (“A” for the Arts) with a view to locating the moral and humanistic sciences firmly under the umbrella of all sciences; the development of a “polytechnical culture”; the development of a plan to update the education system at all levels; the creation of a space for industry, labor and academia to develop critical thinking; and the promotion of the moral and social sciences as a bulwark of democracy.