I am a biological engineer, and I spend my time creating new technologies. Those who have worked in research will know that demonstrating a nice, real-life application of a new technology is an important step of technological research. I am wondering whether it is OK to ask questions such as:
I have a proof of concept for a new technique that can achieve XXX in context YYY, within the limits of ZZZ, in which biological context could I apply it?
I know that one should in theory create technologies to address a pre-defined problem, but that is not the point of the question. Let's assume, for example, that a competing team came up with an unrelated and better solution for that exact problem, so the problem does not exist anymore and I need to expand the scope of my project.
I see conflicting information on meta and help pages, so here are the pros and cons that I came up with:
- The help page recommends to avoid questions if "every answer is equally valid", which would possibly be the case here - provided that the answers are not scientifically aberrant.
- It does sound like "an open-ended, hypothetical question", which the help page also describes as being bad.
This kind of question meets many criteria of the "guidelines for a great subjective question". Such acceptable questions:
- "inspire answers that explain why and how"
- "invite sharing experiences over opinions"
- "insist that opinion be backed up with facts and references"
- "have a constructive, fair, and impartial tone"
- "are more than just mindless social fun"
Are such questions acceptable, if the user posts enough technical details to avoid pure speculation?