During this time, i saw in a video a metaphor for doctoral research: it's like letting you be in a closed room, and the teacher doesn't give you a ready-made fly shot, and you're going to invent a weapon that no one has ever used to kill that fly. The point is not to kill a fly, but the weapon that no one has ever discovered, which may be known even to your teacher, or to you alone in the world。
This seemingly odd or even absurd metaphor of “flying on a stick” actually touches the heart of front-line scientific research — exploring uninvolved areas. Real innovation often starts with “no use” or “unusual” in existing cognitive frameworks and utilitarian perspectives. So how do we look at these weird studies? Are they a waste of resources or are they the prototypes of a “new weapon” for the future
The testimony of history — the mocked “no use” — how it became the cornerstone of paradigm change
In scientific history, epoch-making breakthroughs are often at an early stage characterized by cold encounters and even ridicule as they deviate from the mainstream or appear to be of no direct use. It's like the seemingly strange process of “new weapons”, which may just be seen by others as a mess of tools。
Mendel's pea experiment is one example. Between 1854 and 1863, the abbey of austria completed a series of hybrid experiments using peas in the monastery of st. Thomas in brno and discovered two major laws of genetics. However, his discovery was ignored by the entire scientific community at the time, and its importance was not recognized until 16 years after his death。
Forty-four pages of the paper " plant hybrid experiments " , published by mondall in 1866, were more than 35 years old. His reputation and honour derive mainly from this article, and almost all genetics textbooks make this a key cornerstone of genetics. But in that age when the concept of “genetics” had not yet emerged, mendel's first idea of “genetic factors” was too advanced to be drowned in the widespread darwinian evolution。
The results of this later rewrited biological history were largely ignored by academics for 34 years. It was only in 1900 that three botanical scientists from the netherlands, germany and austria, in their independent studies, repeated the findings of mendel at almost the same time. At that time, the study was viewed by many as merely a monk's “horticultural hobby”。
The situation in einstein is quite similar. This “amateur thinker” who works at the patent office has conducted purely ideological experiments and theoretical inferences that were ignored because of his distance from the then experimental physics mainstream. His relativism has subverted human perception of time and space, but at an early stage, theories based solely on mathematical extrapolation and ideological experiments may seem more like a de facto “airhouse” in a empirical physics world。
The lessons of history have shown that exploration based on pure curiosity and non-mergery is an important source of breakthrough innovation. The strange attempts to be seen now as “tucking flies on a stick” may be the birthplace of tomorrow's “relativity”。
The current review - the hidden subversive energy in cold doors and strange research
In today's highly divided and pragmatic scientific environment, many studies have been misconstrued by the public and even some academic circles as “no use” because of their remoteness or uncertain prospects of application. In practice, however, these seemingly “unusual” research directions often contain unexpected subversive energy。
A typical example is the study of a water bear. This tiny creature, with a size of only 0. 05 to 1. 2 mm, looks like a “pear” and is one of the most resilient organisms known on earth. They can survive in various extreme environments, even in an unprotected outer space vacuum。
However, research on water bearworms is by no means a simple “hunting surprise”. By means of ice engraving techniques, scientists at the university of west lake in china succeeded in placing nanoscales on the surface of water bearworms and tested the feasibility of microprocessing techniques in living organisms. Even more surprising is the fact that water bearworms are an important source of inspiration for cancer therapy research because of their unique radiation resistance and extreme environmental resistance。
The team from harvard and iowa university delivered the mrna of the dsup protein through polymer lipid nanoparticles, reducing radiation damage to oral and rectal tissues by 50 per cent in mice and without affecting the lethal effects of therapeutic treatment on the tumor. The water bear can withstand a gamma-ray dose of up to 3,000-5,000 gy, 1,000 times the human lethal dose。
Three key mechanisms were revealed by the discovery of the henan pyramid by chinese scientific teams: horizontal gene transfer, which allowed them to acquire the doda1 gene from bacteria, and catalyzing beetery to remove harmful free radicals from radiation; accelerated dna recovery through liquid-liquid separation of the trid1 protein; and linear particle metabolism, which promotes nad+ regeneration and activates the route for dna recovery。
These findings mark the transition of biomedical science from natural imitation to technological innovation and the future or promotion of cancer treatment into a new phase of “high-dose low-level injury”. Who would have thought that the study of this “smuggling” micro-organisms could be an important weapon for humans against cancer
Many of the frontier cross-cutting disciplines were born with this "cross-border eccentricity". Their value lies in the opening up of completely new problem areas and paths to resolution, such as the invention of new weapons that seem strange, which may eventually change the pattern of the entire battlefield。
Systemic dilemmas - how to evaluate how to stifle the “quiet-driven” study
However, the currently prevalent system of short-term paper outputs, project funding and immediate application-oriented scientific evaluation is systematically squeezing the living space of exploratory research that truly requires long-term growth. Such a single evaluation system of “digital heroes” places heavy pressure on scientists to “one size fits all”。
In a number of scientific institutions, the contributions of scientists are measured mainly by the number of papers and projects, which are linked to promotion, rating, award of titles, awards, etc. This “paper-only, impact-only” assessment model has led to a distortion of the incentive to “reconstruct, light” and “republishing, light”。
The overemphasis on “research prospects” in project applications and reviews has resulted in a “foreseeability” tyranny. Researchers are forced to choose safe and predictable pathways to avoid the real problem of high-risk and high-uncertainty. And those deep ideas or technologies that really need to be worn over a long period of time are out of place in the face of this “efficiency-first” myth。
The “inner volume” and “fast-food” studies were produced with the speed and quantity of publication at their core. The frenzied wind of seeking “shorter and smoother” and overheating selections is growing and breeds a lot of academic misconduct. The pattern of academic research in basic disciplines contradicts short-term utilitarian indicators, making it difficult for researchers to remain calm and calm。
Even non-scientific personnel are involved in the “academic championships”, some of them high school counsellors and administrators, hospital doctors, etc., carry the paper requirements. In this atmosphere, absurd events such as the 14 sci papers of undergraduate students have entered the public eye frequently, revealing a degree of acute interest and urgency in the academic community。
The reform of the european union's system of scientific evaluation might provide some inspiration. By the end of 2025, the eu-led member institutions of the union for the advancement of research and assessment had reached nearly 1,000 signatories, covering more than 40 countries. Building on the agreement on the reform and assessment of scientific research, the alliance establishes four core commitments: recognition of the diversity of research contributions, prioritization of qualitative assessments, abandonment of inappropriate use of journal influence factors and rankings, and promotion of assessment of integrity and transparency。
We need to reform evaluation mechanisms, establish a culture of funding and evaluation that is oriented towards long-termism, tolerance of failure, encouragement of exploration and protection of the “start-up” and “fielding” of scientific research. It is as important to leave room for seemingly “unusual” research as it is to retain research and development laboratories for possible “new weapons” in the future。
The intelligence of disgusting — to build “new weapons” in “old subjects”
Innovations are not always unique. The search for breakthroughs in mature “old subjects” requires unique perspectives, cross-thinking and deep-down farming. It is as if new weapons had been invented in workshops where tools are already stacked, what is needed is a deep understanding of existing tools and a bold imagination of new combinations。
Wisdom lies first and foremost in the question of a return to the mechanism and the concept of foundations. New growth points may be identified by revisiting the most fundamental assumptions and concepts of the discipline. What mendel has done is to re-examine the fundamental phenomenon of genetics, which, from simple pea hybrid experiments, is the basic rule of genetics。
Embracing interdisciplinary tools is as important as a perspective. The introduction of methodology or ideas in other areas is a common path to breakthroughs. The research of water bearworms has produced so much potential for application because of the convergence of methods and problem awareness in a wide range of fields, such as material science, medicine and space biology。
Tolerance of differences in “research tastes” is even more critical. Respect for the unique path chosen by researchers based on deep knowledge and personal insight, even if it is temporarily not understood. Each researcher has his or her own unique “research taste”, just as every craftsman has a unique way of using tools。
The essence of academic innovation is a wisdom to take risks carefully on the known edges. It requires researchers to have both the ambition to build “new weapons” and the patience to do so by improving “fly beats”. In the seemingly closed room, the fly may have existed for a long time, but it's really important that you find a new way to look at it and invent a new way to catch it。
Embrace uncertainty and light the dark zone of knowledge
The journey from flies to new weapons is a metaphor for scientific exploration itself. It is full of uncertainty and requires courage, vision and institutional care. The weird attempts to tie flies to a stick may be the only way to the unknown。
In today's increasingly organized knowledge production, the preservation of a soil that allows for “unusualness” and encourages “unuseful use” is essential to maintaining the overall vitality of science and the potential for breakthrough. Like in a coherent arsenal, there is a need to retain prototype designs that appear strange but that may change the course of battle。
The era of mendel will finally come, and einstein's prophecy will finally be validated, and the study of the water bear worms will change from “huntering” to “helping”. Each era has its own seemingly “no-use” research, and each field has its own seemingly “unusual” direction, but it is these explorations that light up the dark zone of knowledge and broaden the boundaries of human perception。
Have you ever seen or heard of research that at first felt “what's the use of this” and was subsequently proven valuable? We'll share it with you。
