Short Communication - (2022) Volume 13, Issue 5
Received: 02-May-2022, Manuscript No. AASRFC-22- 13580; Editor assigned: 04-May-2022, Pre QC No. AASRFC-22-13573 (PQ); Reviewed: 18-May-2022, QC No. AASRFC-22- 13580; Revised: 24-May-2022, Manuscript No. AASRFC-22- 13580 (R); Published: 30-May-2022, DOI: 10.36648/0976-8610.13.5.70
The world has been disrupted in the last six months by the spread of an infection with peculiar properties, raising alarm not only for the virus’s direct pathologic impact on impacted people, but also, for the most part, for its simply standard tally explained methods of engendering. The new sickness has an extraordinary medical, social, and financial impact, as well as a profound impact on our moral and moral values. Because the clinical reaction is overwhelmed by vulnerability, and the requests to science for a quick cure are left unmet public trust in science is irritated. This is most likely the best time to update the epistemological framework in which we envision medical practise, as well as applied and key examination. The following brief descriptions can be used to characterise
(a) Basic/Fundamental research: Interest-driven research planning to understand peculiarities;
(b) Applied research: Research focused on immediate needs driven applications;
(c) Medical practise: A broad range of skills and advances, with an emphasis on patient and societal well-being.
It’s obvious that these three exercises are becoming increasingly interconnected, but each one maintains major areas of strength for a personality. The risk of semantic and epistemological confusion between these three exercises is very high, and it can lead to erroneous social assumptions as well as scepticism of science and logic. Demanding quick and conclusive answers from researchers on complex issues is unreasonable, and it runs the risk of experts’ legitimate reactions to their limitations and newness to new complex issues being misinterpreted as a disappointment by established researchers.
In light of the fact that one researcher’s theory is frequently questioned in the public arena by another researcher, the tension for obtaining indisputable remarks from logical authorities, who occasionally become ‘VIPs’ through the attention of the media, possibly tickling their individual selfishness, is likewise every now and then a harbinger of further trouble in the science- society relationship. In a time when short announcements are preferred over in-depth analyses, and news is consumed quickly, there is often no place in the media for presenting the basic conversation between researchers as a physiologically consistent and undeniable advance in knowledge. It should be understood that scientific theories are only a rough approximation of the real world, and that this approximation may be insufficient for the mechanical applications sought later. In this regard, we advocate for a new partnership between the media and established researchers to ensure that the logical interaction in all of its complexity is appropriately represented. Medical practise, as well as science based medical research, may be able to respond to the complexities of an obscure disease more quickly than fundamental research. This is particularly true in clinical practise, which is constantly confronted with patients’ needs [1-5].
As a result, after the initial quick clinical reaction, the inconsistencies seen between comparative yet distinct diseases, that is, the minute heterogeneities seen on what may appear to be a single pathology, should be re-addressed to fundamental science, which in the long run can provide compelling instruments necessary to move toward precision medication and disease cure. Although the timing and progress of fundamental exploration differ significantly from that of applied science, the points of view of applied science are disabled and the risk of restorative methodologies being disappointed is increased in the absence of a solid foundation in fundamental science.
The authors are grateful to the journal editor and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions.
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
[Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
[Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
[Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
[Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
[Crossref] [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
Citation: Bae H (2022) At the Time of COVID-19, the Fundementals and Applied Science. Adv Appl Sci Res. 13:70.
Copyright: ©Bae H. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
