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

As behavioural research, conducted by The Indian Institute in 2019, concluded that everyone should behave prudently or in a way so as not to avoid resources, therefore, the Government, which is nothing but a representation of people must act wisely and should not fund any activity whose desirable outcomes are not certain. It is important for the society to act economically since in this commoditised world, many animals and natural resources have been endangered because of reckless behaviour or for commercial gains. While there is no reservation that without Government support, scientific research cannot help solving the problems of society of which outcomes are unclear initially, there are reasons to believe that Government should act wisely since the requirement of funds for other welfare programmes is now higher than ever.

However true it may be the case that Government should act prudently and should address many problems of society by efficient use of resources, but advancement in science and research is not possible without Government support, even if consequences are obscure. Without undertaking any significant efforts to develop something new such as anti-virus in order to cure people from lethal diseases, it is not likely that humans could have something to counter the sudden occurrence of deadly diseases. For example, the research conducted by scientists in Congo from 2014 to 2018 concluded that the Government supported the development of anti-dote despite knowing that chances of getting it developed were insignificant. But, ultimately scientists developed a cure and with the help of this cure, they prevented the rise of such deadly disease and saved many lives. Therefore, in the field of medical science where outcomes are not known, research must be supported by Government.

Contrary to above paragraph, the first argument that supports the idea of not supporting any endeavour of research without knowing its consequences is that resources are limited but their intended use are copious. In a society where inequality is increasing and people are living off meager resources and where majority of the population is deprived of healthcare and education, it is not only necessary but also morally acceptable for the Government to utilise the resources efficiently. For example, the country of Zambia where poverty ratio is among the highest and where people are dying of starvation, the report of United Nations in 2016 argued that Government of Zambia has primary responsibility to take care of its citizens and leave the scientific development to the international community. Hence, where economic conditions of countries are at nadir, uncertain scientific research must not be supported by Government.

Further, the second and final argument that buttresses the narrative that Government should act wisely is that often research whose outcome is not certain may endanger the existence of the Government. As per the report of International Monetary Fund, released in 2006, current times are challenging where Government of every nation is resorting to any means necessary in order to survive or be at the helm, any venture into unintended consequences may fall back on the Government. For example, the ambitious programme of Government of India in 1980 to develop nuclear weapons had encouraged scientists to develop the test facility in Bhopal, in India, though development was not certain that time. But due to the sudden and unpredictable gas leakage from the facility, the chaos engulfed the whole city of Bhopal and in the subsequent elections, Government lost the trust vote. Therefore, Government’s support to research of unintended consequences can result in the backlash.

While concluding, as can be seen from the above paragraphs that although Government support to medical research helps scientists to develop a cure, lest the disease would spread and endanger the existence of human beings, but economic conditions of a country and past incidents of undesirable experiments argue for the prudent behaviour of the Government.