The importance of 'small' science

My subject is “small” science—not small in physical dimensions or significance, but science done by capable individuals or small teams of scientists who are motivated solely by curiosity about how nature works. I mean science unencumbered by the goals, direction, or guidance of administrators, funding agencies, or politicians. I mean science done without the slightest consideration of its practical worth to society or humankind. How important is “small” science? I think it is the single most important thing that has made possible the technological revolution of the 20th century. This is by no means a new idea; it was expressed 45 years ago by Vannevar Bush, who wrote, “New products and processes are founded on new principles and conceptions which, in turn, are developed by research in the purest realms of science.” I also think, however, that the contributions of small science to the wealth and welfare of humankind are not well recognized today, either among the population at large or among those who fund science. It is fairly obvious to anyone who has looked at research budgets over the past decade or two that small science is being increasingly neglected in favor of big science and of science directed toward perceived national and global problems. In the long run this neglect will be detrimental to society, and the trend must be reversed.