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

Throughout history, we have witnessed and benefited from scientific advancement in wide-ranging contexts including medicine, astronomy, and physics. Some commend such efforts and have faith in financing scientific research projects whose results appear promising, if not conclusive at this juncture. On the other hand, as the prompt clearly states, others take a more conservative stance on this issue and are unwilling to advocate for such optimistic spending. Although this is an extremely sensitive subject in nature, a careful scrutiny into a few past and current scientific debates, such as that on marijuana and HIV/AIDS, provides a deeper insight into how governments should not disregard scientific research just because its consequences are ambiguous.

First and foremost, scientific results could be politicized and conveniently dismissed as “unclear.” The recent discussion on marijuana exemplifies the ways in which scientific research whose results are becoming increasingly clear continued to be shunned. Overwhelmingly proved to be less malign than legal drugs such alcohol or tobacco and to have rather positive effects on certain medical conditions such as cancer, marijuana has maintained its “Schedule I” status in the United States of America, a kind of drug that cannot be federally consumed and researched due to its harmful effects. Critics argue that a few powerful industries whose vested interests lie in maintaining the illegal status of marijuana, such as the private prison complex and the pharmaceutical industry, have been lobbying behind the scenes. In the case of the private prison, which benefits from increasing the number of inmates, the current status of marijuana as an illicit drug serves as the legitimate reason to incarcerate more prisoners, a robust source of revenue. For the pharmaceutical industry, marijuana’s ability to alleviate serious pain is an immense threat to the profitability of its painkillers. As this convoluted nature of politics illustrates, “unclear” scientific research results that are cited in certain cases can be driven by political manipulation rather than facts based on research. Therefore, with these hidden factors at play, governments should be wary of what “unclear” scientific consequences can mean when debating whether to fund such research projects.

Furthermore, it would not be so wise for governments to give up funding just because current results are “unclear.” If we revisit the history of medical advancement for HIV/AIDS treatment, it is evident that certain scientific research takes an enormous amount of time despite its potential social benefits. In the 1970s and 1980s, when an HIV/AIDS epidemic began to spread out, the world was at a loss and could not identify what the virus was, let alone any treatment for it. In contrast, today we have witnessed and benefited from incredible progress such as drugs that not only lessen its debilitating effects but also significantly prevent the virus from developing. Although we have yet to discover medication that completely eliminates the disease, one can argue that, in retrospect, the continued efforts to fund the relevant research projects have proven to be worthwhile and contributed to this progress. As such, because certain scientific research can be worthwhile while overwhelming and time-consuming, the claim that governments should not finance any research just because its results are unclear should not be unconditionally supported.

Admittedly, although the presented statement cannot be justified in the aforementioned cases, governments are always pressured to budget their taxpayer money wisely and it is not difficult in reality to reach consensus on what research to prioritize with budget constraints. For instance, in the wake of Urayasu City’s decision to subsidize egg-freezing practices in Japan, citizens have been debating whether this is the best way to use taxpayer money. As the likelihood of successful pregnancy from frozen eggs has never been proven to be 100%, some argue that its efficacy remains unclear and that this funding is by no means justifiable. While it appears to be one of the promising ways to deal with the low birthrate in Japan, it stands to reason that governments should be mindful of their resources and citizens’ opinions in making decisions.)

In summary, while there are arguments to be made for both sides, governments should not completely discount the importance of funding scientific research even in the face of heavy odds that its unclear results entail. The cases of marijuana and HIV/AIDS clearly illustrate the ways in which such decisions cannot only be politically misled, but also impede potential scientific strides that could have an immense impact on society.