ISSUE 30 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 dev

Nowadays, many nations are cultivating scientists and engineers while one of their primary goals is to realize further industrial and the following economic effects. Therefore, policy makers ponder about whether to fund scientific research without prominent consequences. However, despite some examples which failed to achieve discernable success, I strongly disagree with the claim regarding the inherent character of natural sciences.
In is unable to deny that there are some experiences of scientific researches, which so-called failed, to demonstrate a corporeal result. The research done by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, or NASA, would be one of the compelling examples. NASA have been trying to find, or at least some mere evidences of, intellectual organisms out of the Earth. NASA is sending coded information about human’s discovery about the world, including the structure of double strand of DNA and the wavefunction of electron, to the outer space, while not getting a single reply from aliens. This might epitome scientific researches without significant consequences.
However, it must be noted that most of the historic discoveries in sciences are done by sort of serendipity. For instance, CRISPR-Cas9 system, which was first discovered during simple research of the ecology of bacteria and archaea that lives in hot and salty water. Later, the revaluation of this system was done, with esteem as the future technology which enables precise genome editing, which will bring the human to the world without fatal inherited disease. Furthermore, the scientists who strived for the research of CRISPR-Cas9 system were given the Nobel Prize of Chemistry very recently. Without the funding from the National Institute of Health, of the United States, the very seed of such versatile tool would not been planted.
Finally, taking the given recommendation would end up with detrimental effect on the level of science and technology of a nation, in the general sense. If any fund were not given to research without prominent results, very few people will try to conduct creative research. Skillful and dreamful scientists will refuse to do their work domestically, and therefore many scientists will leave their home country while no students will to major natural sciences. Finally, this will end up with the degenerated level of natural science and even technology, since a big part of technology borrows the knowledge from natural sciences, as shown in South Korea. Korean government reluctantly funds such scientific research without salient potentials, and therefore many researchers hoping to scrutinize over the complex world of science leave Korea and settle in the United States. This notion of the general logic and even the cogent example, South Korea, proves that the government should not restrict their funding only to certain researches.
In summary, granting the examples of scientific research which does not show some conspicuous results so far, I disagree to the given recommendation regarding the potential negative consequence succeeds such policy. Rather, a nation should encourage scientists to endeavor on their creative works even without clear consequences, because otherwise there will be no seeds for technology nor experts to thrive the domestic field of science.