Scientists and other researchers should focus their research on areas that are likely to to benefit the greatest number of people Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain for the p

Scientific research and discovery has allowed for incredulous strides in fields such as medicine and pharmacology. Indeed, there have been discoveries which have completely revolutionized the world and allowed for the eradication of some diseases once thought impossible to surmount. A cursory glance at history testifies to this. In the 19th century, the development of vaccines resulted in the elimination of smallpox. Those affected with type 1 diabetes now have access to insulin pumps to live longer lives of greater quality than before. In more recent history, vaccination technology has been applied to assuage cases of COVID19. These, and many more examples, have demonstrated the value and power of scientific research.

The statement at hand suggests scientific researchers should strictly investigate the issues which affect our population the most today in order to produce the maximum benefit. While tempting, it is a fallacy to agree with this statement. Scientists should not have to focus their research only on the problems affecting the greatest number of people. There are a multitude of problems which affect our society, and while some are more dire than others, all of these issues must be addressed by someone, no matter how large or small.
Undoubtedly, one of the most government funded and popular areas of scientific research is cancer. It is easy to argue that if all scientists came together to tackle this issue, that we would witness expedited progress in understanding its pathogenesis, finding treatment, and formulating a cure. However, not all scientists are trained, nor have the specific interest in tackling cancer. One of the most beautiful aspects regarding scientific research is the freedom with which researchers choose what they wish to investigate. This concerns the fundamental belief that human beings should pursue their passions. A scientist who is not passionate about an area of research will likely not contribute much to the field as they have no motive or reason to do so. Rather, they can offer much greater contributions to a field in which they possess a fervid zeal for. This is not limited to science, as we see people taking on career changes after realizing their field does not interest them anymore.

Additionally, a disease such as cancer is multifarious and convoluted in its progression. Different forms of cancer take on different routes of pathogenesis, interacting with varying endogenous cell populations. To ultimately defeat cancer, scientists of varying specializations are needed. For example, a computational biologist who specializes in quantitative biology techniques such as machine learning is needed to interpret and visualize data. An immunologist focused on the thymus may be necessary to contribute details regarding T cell development and structure in the context of cancer. A biomedical engineer interested in protein engineering may be recruited to create proteins to target cancer-infected cells. A diverse pool of scientists, with their specialized expertise and research interests can be more effective in defeating a given disease than a group with all the same area of focus.

In summary, researchers should focus instead on areas for which they have firm interest. It is quixotic to believe that those with little drive in an area of research will contribute much to the field. The problems faced by humanity require researchers of varying backgrounds and disciplines to successfully be overcome and for the human race to progress forwards.