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

The statement wielding the certainty of benefits to be accrued from a scientific research as the major determinant for its funding by the Government has gained grounds in the past decades. This statement in itself is misguided since it precludes the fact that the unparalleled evolution of the universe realized through scientific research cannot be conceived by thought process. Needless to say, the scientific breakthroughs over the years emerging as modernization today could not have been thought of by the researchers themselves let alone the Government. Isaac Newton, one of the greatest scientist in history, in the events that gave rise to the second law of gravitation; was in the garden, when he contemplated why an apple tree always falls perpendicularly to the ground. It is skeptical to think that either Isaac Newton or the Government assumed that the consequences of the law of gravitation would be a world where sophisticated and humongous machines called spaceships, rockets and satellites would orbit the earth, giving rise to communication, earth observation and planetary exploration.

Proponents of this statement will contend that most scientific research are superfluous, profligate and uneconomical (e.g., NASA, a space agency located in the United States of America with an annual budget of about 17 billion dollars), whose funds can be diverted to better use. Yet such assumptions are itself paradoxical making such thinking logically opposing – what is the yardstick used to determine which sector of the economy is striving better? What determines where funds are to be diverted? Is Government’s expenditure on sports, art and even NGOs of less obscure consequences than scientific research? In as much as incorporating funds in every scientific research would be unreasonable, funding only scientific research whose consequences are clear is rather too extreme.

Furthermore, the statement’s prejudice against scientific research based on assumptions earlier discussed fails to consider how the consequences of a scientific research would be determined to be obscure. The statement thus assumes that one can stare into the future just as an astronomer gazes to space with a telescope. Certain factors and methods might be developed for this purpose, albeit unjustifiable. Thomas Alva Edison was an American inventor. He developed many devices that greatly influenced life around the world but in his early years, teachers told Edison he was “too stupid to learn anything.” Work was no better as he was sacked from his first two jobs for not being productive. Even while inventing the electric light bulb, arguably the chief of his invention, Edison made 1000 unsuccessful attempts which finally resulted in the design that worked. That invention formed the rudiments for which the various lighting devices today are formed. Hence, regardless the degree of meticulous scrutinizing be done by the Government, mistakes are inevitable. Consequently, world evolving researches would be omitted.

Impeding the progress of scientific research not only precludes world evolution as discussed in the previous paragraph, but also hinders fruitful knowledge to the world. The culmination of years of scientific research opens the world to new ideas that cuts across every aspect of life. Every scientific research are intertwined and forms the basis for which further research are carried out. At 143 meters, Guy’s Tower is the tallest hospital building in the world. Various professionals ranging from: architects, quantity surveyors, designers, structural, building, civil, electrical and mechanical engineers brainstorm to build a spectacular structure that defeats norms. This tower therefore forms the edifice for which doctors, nurses and pharmacist administer various medical and surgical treatment. These professionals compass different aspects of scientific research. Hence, not funding certain scientific research believed to have unclear consequences hampers the growth of such professions and ultimately mars the balance of scientific findings.

Scientists have to seek alternative ways of funding scientific research in order to safeguard continuous supply of fruitful knowledge to the world. Majority will seek succor from unscrupulous private individuals who would steal their ideas and use it for their selfish motives. The minority left without financial assistance would eventually give up, leading to abandoned research. In any case, the scientist is frustrated with little or no morale left. Consequently, scientific research will dwindle leading to little or no research for the government to fund.

This is not to say that the Government should invest in every research. Rather, the government should allocate funds to the various aspects of scientific research and create a committee to ensure the funds are distributed accordingly. Besides, while NASA require 17 billion dollars, some require just a blood sample and funds can be given gradually. Whether the outcome of a scientific research be plain or obscure to the knowledge of man, its certainty is ultimately beyond our grasp. The most obscure scientific research can be a spring to diverse technological evolution.