I disagree with your statement regarding much of King’s research. Many of the parts of his research I am aware of tend to be rather important for basic energy. While much of it is highly academic, much of it also has significant relevance the “applied” side of science. There is of course a spectrum between academic and applied, but it seems to me that much of his work is quite closely related to basic energy research with at least some relevance to industrial and applied scientists. I think that is especially true if you compare his work to other fields that clearly are further towards the “basic” side of the spectrum. I’ll pick the two best examples that come to my mind at the moment: Alternative power sources such as fuel cells (yes, I’m well aware that they’re not the panacea they’re often made out to be) and cleaner conventional engines.

I think that basic science in support of fuel cells (particular the understanding of Pt surfaces and the ‘model’ fuel CO) and oxidation of gases such as NO and CO into less harmful products would qualify quite well for science with a rather direct connection to energy and the environment. Platinum crystal facets, Pt alloys, and Pt micro/nano particles have been some of the more promising and interesting surfaces with regards to catalysts for fuel cells. It is also true that catalytic converters providing a means for oxidation reactions such as CO to CO2 and NO to N & O, (among others) make for cleaner burning engines. Again, that interesting metal platinum makes an appearance. Glancing through a few searches it looks like he’s got at least around 60-70 papers that deal with the activity of gases such as CO and NO on surfaces. That number could easily be well below that actual mark. I’m certain he was often guided by curiosity and academic interest, but I imagine a reasonable amount of his motivation had to do with the potential payoff of understanding these things better.

Perhaps my original wording is misleading towards implying something to the effect of “King makes Fuel Cells or King’s research makes your car produce no CO.” If that is the impression my words give, then they should be restated. Nonetheless, I do think there’s a quick and ready connection between much of his work (over 3 decades of it) and what can be applied towards cleaner power and engines. I find it hard to imagine that the potential payoff of understanding those systems and reactions played little role in his motivation. Remove the work by people such as King or Ertl and the industrial scientists trying to develop fuel cells and catalytic converters would be at a genuine loss. Compare that to the contributions of many a successful scientist rooted in high-energy physics (such as Brian Cox or even a more senior researcher). They often do fascinating work, but the connection towards real world problems is very often (not always, but very often) much further removed. They rely much more heavily on innate human curiosity/answering big questions (truly often a valid reason) and potential spin-offs (I find that less compelling as I see both “basic” and “applied” science generating unexpected benefits). It seems to me that the work of King, while often very academic, still has significant importance to the “real world.” I think you’ll find true applied industrial scientists working in basic energy that do cite some of King’s work. Perhaps I’m lacking imagination but I’m not seeing that direct of a connection for someone like Cox (and I shouldn’t have to say this again, but here goes : that’s not a knock against his research based on a curiosity or wonder metric).

There’s perhaps a bit of confusion for some people upon our use of the terms “basic” and “applied.” They’re often stated as if there’s a clear and distinct difference upon which we all agree. Often that’s the case. However, very often that line is rather blurry, especially depending upon your point of view. The terms “basic” and “applied” science often have different meanings depending upon who is using them. Typically “applied” is used when there is a specific end in mind other than answering inherently interesting questions and satisfying curiosity. Typically the term “basic” is used to describe work that is principally undertaken to sate our curiosity. However, the “line” between the two is drawn in very different places. I consider my own work on the basic side. I’ve given talks before industry crowds and often had the response, “that’s interesting, but really too academic to be useful to what we’re concerned with.” At the same time, many of my friends in high-energy physics or astronomy look at my work as deep in “applied” territory.

In fact while I think my own work does fall on the “basic” side, it’s near enough to occasionally be of interest to those on the “applied” side. I take a great deal of pleasure and satisfaction in that respect. I think it’s a fascinating, interesting place to do science. I’m also happy that my work does contribute (in my case in only a small way so far) towards things that I think might make the world a better place. King’s work that I’m familiar with often falls in this middle ground (though with much greater impact than my own).

My defense of King is not based on any personal knowledge of the man nor am I very informed about his politics. Living in the states, I’m well aware that there’s probably a great deal I do not know or understand about the state of science funding in the UK. Rather, it’s based on the (admittedly) limited amount that I have seen such as the above video and my knowledge as a scientist (which compared to quite a few people is also limited, I am only a post-doc). However, from that I see a great deal of people bashing King with arguments that seem very ad hominem and without recognizing that you should give very serious consideration to the following situation.

Regrettably we only have a certain amount of money each year with which to fund science. It is far, far too low an amount to fund everything and everyone. As such, while we may work in the long term towards hopefully getting better science funding (and education), in the short term we’re faced with a very serious issue. We’re going to have to decide that some things don’t get funding or get much less money than they need. Perhaps it is in our genuine interest to weight some of our decision about which projects receive money (and how much) based upon those programs that are working more directly towards problems with a broad societal or potentially global impact?

I think that’s a tough and fair question to ask.

Best wishes,

Michael

I work in broadly the same field of research as David King, namely surface science. Pierce suggests the following in his post above:

“[King's] own field is at the heart of basic energy. The problems he has seen and worked on for much of his life have had direct bearing on both energy use/consumption and climate change (along with many other things).”

Errmm, no. Sorry, but no. A slightly edited version of the following letter will be published in the Times Higher Education (THE) (Supplement) later this week and gives my particular take on the question of the direct societal/economic relevance of King’s research. (The first line of the letter refers to a wonderful opinion piece by Kevin Fong entitled “Don’t Knock Knowledge” in the 18 Sept. issue of the THE. Subscription required, unfortunately).

——————-

Thank you Kevin Fong for your cogent and inspiring riposte to David King’s comments on blue skies research (”Don’t knock knowledge”, THE Sept. 18). In addition to the important arguments outlined in the opinion piece (which should be repeated often and loudly to Research Councils UK and the Department for Innovation, Universities, and Skills), it is perhaps also worth highlighting that Prof. King’s recommendation for scientists to focus on research problems which have direct and immediate application appears rather at odds with his extensive publication record over the past few decades.

A quick Web of Science search reveals that King has published many heavily cited papers in ultrahigh vacuum (UHV) surface science, focussing, for example, on the minutiae of particular surface phases or the detail of reaction kinetics under UHV conditions. While this body of research has been immensely influential in the surface science community of which I’m a member – and, indeed, in the wider academic community – I think that Prof. King would be the first to agree that much of the work could not be said to directly address immediate societal or environmental problems. Moreover, a large fraction of the funding for Prof. King’s research has been awarded through the EPSRC’s responsive mode programme, whose raison d’etre is to support investigator-driven, blue skies research.

As Fong points out, it is immensely dispiriting to hear an erstwhile chief scientific advisor and the current president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science argue that basic research is a waste of taxpayers’ money. It is doubly disappointing for surface scientists such as me who have been inspired by King’s elegant and world-leading approach to fundamental science.

Philip Moriarty,
School of Physics & Astronomy,
University of Nottingham

Let’s not forget, of course, that King recently accepted the role of Director of a new institute in Oxford focussed on climate change and environmental issues….

,,,and they’re such stinky beasts,,,

GAry 7