Sir

The Commentary 'Europe’s research system must change' (Nature 452, 935–936; 2008) may be applauded by science policy-makers, but it sent shivers down my spine as a scientist. Curiosity-driven research is under siege from those who claim that they know best how to “attain Europe's economic, social and environmental goals”, and to “engage research with the problems that society recognizes as central”.

There is nothing apparently wrong with such clichés, but for me they evoked an image of a tribe of chimpanzees sitting in banana trees pondering their societal needs. The issue at stake is to find a better technology for banana peeling. To climb down the tree and start walking would be viewed by the group as either a priority or politically correct. Likewise, the Commentary is full of populist, politically correct goals such as carbon capture, and leaves aside difficult ones such as nuclear energy.

This could not be further removed from the message of another Commentary 'The unpaid debt' (Nature Phys. 3, 824–825; 2007). That described how the fundamental research that usually serves — let's face it — very obscure goals can nevertheless “yield unforeseen benefits of great value for society”. Fortunately, there are still some agencies and a few politicians who do their best to fund blue-sky, seemingly useless research — but they are under attack.

Nature is uniquely placed to help them by conveying the message that a successful society must commit a significant portion of its resources to curiosity-driven research and not ask for anything apparently useful in return, as long as it is assured that qualified people do the work. Otherwise, we shall never learn how to climb down those banana trees that are undisputedly important and recognizable to society.

See also Large projects can create useful partnerships European research needs a dash of anarchy