Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear

Given the fortuitous character of some of the most groundbreaking scientific discoveries, the unqualified author’s statement doesn’t seem appropriate. The discovery of fire in the Stone-Age, for instance, which has reshaped the ways we behave daily, was nothing but serendipity. One can also learn from how microwave was discovered by the melting of a chocolate bar when Percy Spencer worked on a radar-related project. Right from prehistoric times, research proves to be an exact framework with inexact consequences, running the gamut from penicillin to peacemaker.

To begin with and to have the benefit of the hindsight in this debate, it is essential to comprehend the very essence of research, and therefore a holistic lens is required. Especially in sciences, be it molecular chemistry or quantum physic, the indeterminate consequences of most projects are tightly bound, both literally and figuratively, to the hazy and nebulous feature of our close and remote surrounding. No one can either ignore that the very essence of research is to discover the unknown and thus the immaculate clarity of research isn’t at all a prerequisite for its funding by governments. In this regard, the author fails to grasp its marrow.

Knowledge indeed evolves along a continuum and there is no end at this process. While it might be obvious that no public money should be prodigally expanded on behalf of a handful of self-indulgent researchers, the trial-and-error approach is of sheer importance. To exemplify this conceit, one could ask themselves whether say one century ago our forefathers would have anticipated the celerity with which our society is overwhelmed with scientific wonders; this not only stems from the scientists’ ingenuity, but all the more from the fact that within their demarcated framework, they have been given free rein to imagine, fail and re-invent by governments and international agencies, this process being at variance with a parochial agenda. Most projects might also languish for decades and suddenly yield scientific breakthroughs, though the rubber has been drastically veered from the initial consequence expected; and only governments have the financial muscle to permit the smooth flowing of this

Conversely, nowadays, for any massive scientific research to be funded by a government, the process is long and painstaking; the author’s assumption seems therefore to be as unqualified as obvious. Indeed, the expected goals must be well-defined, despite these remaining a probability, and such projects are most often backed by thorough literature reviews and additional expertise. One of the last most important scientific discovery, the Large Hadron Colander, epitomises this idea since the it has required arduous work from a plethora of European countries, the long sought-after Higgs-Boson particle’s discovery being then in line with the idea put forth. Notwithstanding, this shouldn’t deprive the brilliant scientists to have the possibility to explore the uncharted nay very obscure paths of research. Consider the NASA, whose budget is mainly allocated and approved by the American government. There is no other agency in the world that provides mankind with more awe-inspiring data and advances than this spatial agency does; and there is no doubt regarding its diligence and seriousness. An entire department though, called NIAC, is entirely dedicated to venturing into the most arcane subjects, with sometimes no hint at all of where its projects are headed. This dichotomy highlights the importance of the unknown in research, and only relying on what we are sure of would devoid science and scientists of their essence.

One can’t either ignore the reluctance of Man regarding science, and more generally, regarding change. The clear consequences of scientific research might also elude the politicians who have been studying foreign affairs or macroeconomics as majors; and even when a committee of pundits is appointed, there is, first, no absolute certainty of the research’s outcome, but these very people might also have myopic views and fail to penetrate the potential of a project. The degree of clarity would then rely on a handful of people, and reluctance might prevails over openness. The young graduated would opt for more lucrative careers such as finance or consulting as it happens nowadays in France, and as depicted above, this would be detrimental to science and society at a wide-scale. All these arguments don’t repudiate the grim facet of our species, tightly bound to the harmful consequences of research, and reminded in the annals of history. The Nuremberg laws and the Helsinki Declaration following the Second World War’s ignominies strengthen the idea that a framework is necessitated in scientific research. The way we divert the use of our discoveries, though, remain our decision, and the efforts put through should be directed to preventing its potential evil use, but not to reining in our brilliant minds.

To conclude, our previous mistakes and international legislation as well as the current scientific research are testimony of our need to be controlled. Though, within these delimitations, all scientists must remain free, the reason of our prominence and well-being as an entity.