governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear.

Any research has its own outcomes. Whether negative or positive, consequences of a research should be to some extent clear. I generally agree with the statement’s claim. Governments should not economically participate in researches whose outcome is entirely cloudy. In what follows, the need of transparency of both positive and negative consequences will be delineated. Nevertheless, naturally researches have their uncertainty of their results. We cannot expect that all consequences are crystal clear before doing the research. But scientists must show that investing in pertaining research is justifiable by portraying the expected consequences.

Proponents of governmental funds on researches with vague outcomes, raise the issue that if the researches outcome had been clear, there was no need for the researches to take place in the first place. The answer is that every research should justify its investment. For instance, consider the NASA project of sending machines to Mars. From the landing of Robots since now there are many unpredictable results that retrospectively were not clear. But the justifiable consequences were clear from initiation. First, many scientists would have jobs to fulfill as astrophysicists, engineers, biologists and so on. Furthermore, Conquering the March as the first country, Introduces the U.S.A as the unique country which most advanced projects take place in there. It had had advertising value for the greatness of such a country. These were only a few clear outcomes that the government is convinced to share a proportion of limited national budget for the NASA project. Otherwise, the authorities were questioned that why they send the money of taxpayers to a project that has not any justification.

Aside from the absolute requirement of positive consequences justifying the governmental investment, also negative consequences are needed to be clear. Consider an atomic experiment. NASA for years has tried to convince governors to use atomic fuels instead of liquid fuels. Not only the government did not participate economically, it did not give permission to do any experiment on this goal. What if the atomic hazards disperse on the people? Even with the lowest probability, such research can tarnish the reputation of the United States of America. Therefore, both negative and positive consequences should be clear to some extent whether to fund any research or not.

In short, governments should not get involved economically in researches with unclear outcomes. Any fund needs to have some justifications. The budget is limited and should be dedicated primarily to researches with at least partially clear perspective of positive outcomes. Negative consequences, also should be portrayed not to spoil the credit of a participating government in the research with totally unclear consequences. Nevertheless, as discussed in the introduction, researchers do not need to portray pertaining consequences in a crystal clear manner. Some vagueness is essential for any research, but researchers also should demonstrate degrees of transparent predictions to get funds.