Claim: Researchers should not limit their investigations to only those areas in which they expect to discover something that has an immediate, practical application. Reason: It is impossible to predict the outcome of a line of research with any certainty.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.

It is understandable why researchers would want to limit their investigations to those areas in which they expect to discover something that has an immediate and practical application. After all, why would anyone wish to invest so much time and effort in a project that has no chance of yielding any benefit to society? That reason is, however, not the only reason to limit research. While it is impossible to predict with certainty which areas of research will yield any useful results, it is not impossible

As a scientist, I have often found that it is hard to predict which areas of my study will yield results of interest. The discipline of genetics, for example, is replete with discoveries that have brought great benefits to mankind. The mapping of the human genome, for instance, led to the development of drugs for the treatment of genetic diseases. Furthermore, genetic research has led to the development of tools that can be used to predict susceptibility to common diseases. However, such discoveries are the exception, not the rule, because the overwhelming majority of genetic research does not produce results that are immediately applicable. Typically, those results take a much longer time to become applicable. In addition, there are entire fields of research that do not produce results that are immediately applicable. These include astronomy, biology, physics, and chemistry. Moreover, most scientists work in interdisciplinary fields, which necessitate the consideration of other fields of research when conducting research in any one field

If researchers were to abandon disciplines that did not yield immediate results, they would find themselves unable to advance in their fields. The field of genetics, for instance, would not be where it is today if researchers had not ventured into areas that did not yield immediate results. However, research that does not produce immediate results is often necessary. For example, the field of veterinary medicine would not be where it is today if every veterinarian had pursued research that was likely to have immediate applications. Some problems have no immediate solutions. For example, there is no known cure for cancer. Even if scientists were to stumble across a cure for cancer tomorrow, they would have had no way of knowing that it would be a cure for cancer. Even if a cure for cancer were discovered tomorrow, we would have no way of knowing whether it would be effective in humans or other animals. And, even if a cure for cancer were discovered tomorrow, we would still have no way of knowing whether it would be effective in humans or animals. Scientists are forced to make choices, and they choose to research problems that are of the greatest importance to society at large. It is entirely possible that an area of research will eventually yield results that have immediate applications. But, in the meantime, those researchers must continue their research.

Total
0
Shares
Total
0
Share