Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take In developing a

Science is the main impetus that drove humanity in such favorable conditions for the last three hundred years. Prompt suggests that the scientific researches who have no feasible results should not be funded. In my not so humble opinion, I mostly disagree with the statement for the following two reasons.

To begin with, one might argue that it’s better to spend taxpayers' money on more relevant and practicable studies rather than wasting money on some arcane fundamental research that has no practical value. In some particular instances such an approach to the funding policy of the researchers could be conducive. For instance, if the nation is in shortage of some complex, difficult to manufacture medical equipment during the pandemic, subsequently it would be prudent to amplify the money output in studies that are dedicated to inventing a new way of manufacturing such equipment in a short time and in vast quantity. Given the example illustrates the significance of funding the researches whose goal is comprehensible in the short – term.

On the contrary, fundamental studies are the main propulsion for the scientific innovation in any given field. If one would look closely at the history of science, it’s that the fundamental question that firstly interested scientists rather than the conducive perquisites of the researched topic. In essence, the pivotal purpose of science is to investigate the dark areas of the universe, where no distinct goal or target can be discerned. Science is like going through the darkroom with a tiny candle, and at the same time scientists are trying to perceive the whole picture of the room by investigating a minute details of the room. At first glance it could be seen that these petty details have no value, but when they will be assembled together the brighter picture could be depicted. And this brighter picture is the primary source of innovation and the ramifications of this picture are the myriad of amenities that could be derived from them. Thus, funding the fundamental researches should be in a sufficient amount as their primary goal is to drive the innovation.

Furthermore, during the research which was dedicated to some basic area scientists can acquire surprisingly new evidence about other areas or even bring up new useful inventions. History is full of examples where researchers of some basic studies in their serendipity stumbled upon sublime discoveries. Take the case of antibiotics, for they were discovered in an accident and the primary purpose of the researcher was to study the harmful bacteria itself not the panacea from them. One can infer from the example that any study, despite their research goal, has value.

In conclusion, based on the illustrated above arguments I, thereby, conclude that the scientific studies should be funded with no discrimination in their purpose, goal, or area of study. However, in some instances giving a priority to a particular target could be conducive.