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

Scientific research is an important segment of scientific and social development today. The money governments commit to the research is constantly increasing every year. In order to make the most efficient out of this money, someone recommends that governments should only fund the research whose consequences are clear. In my opinion, this recommendation has a good standing point but lacks of some considerations of other important factors.

First of all, this recommendation oversees the potential of long term consequences of scientific research. It is doubtless to me that long term outcomes are crucial, sometimes long term effects are even more important than short term ones. Take scientific research in agriculture as an example, if we want to test a new kind of pesticide on vegetables such as tomatoes, a significant amount of researching and experiencing time should be expected. Not only because we need to wait for tomato to grow, but also because we want to collect data of remaining pesticide from offspring. It may be difficult to identify any upcoming results for scientific research like this at first. However, governments should still support it because it helps improve the quality of food.

Moreover, in circumstances like space scientific research, the government should provide financial support even though the outcomes are unknown. We have spent a lot of money in space studies, for example, building up satellite spaces stations and developing new spaceships. Is all this money meaningless? Of course not. Scientists are learning more and more about the space though the way with these developments. If we cut the budget of space research because there is no clear consequence, we would never understand what surrounds us, which consequently cuts any further development in the space.

Nevertheless, this recommendation may be adapted under certain situations that require fast results with limited budgets. Many university researches would fall under this category. Hence this recommendation is beneficial for select the best candidates quickly; government official may consider it upon their needs.

To sum up, I partially disagree with the recommendation that only scientific research with clear outcomes could get funded by government. Even though this recommendation may be useful in some situation, a detailed case by case analysis should be conducted before any action has been committed.