Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear.Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should

Should government avoid funding any scientific researches whose aftermaths are unclear? A simple answer on this question, probably, does not exists due to the fact that its implementation brings some positive consequences such as economy of money of tax-payers and negative ones about which we will speak in more details below; however, in my opinion, policy's drawbacks definitely outweigh expected benefits and therefore I disagree with the issue.

To begin with, the proposed policy has several positive facets which make it attractive for public. Perhaps, two of them are the most significant. Firstly, government's funding of only scientific endeavors, which consequences are clear, will inescapably allow the state to preserve from wasting tax-payers money. For example, in the 1960s the government of the USSR spent tens of millions of rubles on studying the second planet of the solar system, an enormous amount of money was invested in researches and several rockets were launched to Venus, unfortunately, the attempt brought almost no results and the money spent were lost. It is only one of many cases when huge amount of budget's money were squandered without useful results.

The second positive aftermath of the policy is the reassurance that no unexpected accident will happen. Scientists in their relentless search for knowledge may sometimes start researches whose results not only unclear but may possess serious threat to the environment and sometimes even to the whole planet. One of the most recent examples of such research is building and using a great Hardon Collider. The research is famous because of the existing probability that experiments, which are conducted in the facility, may cause disaster and even create a black hole which will annihilate the planet itself. The fulfillment of the policy will guarantee that such supposedly dangerous researches will not fund and thus the disaster will not strike.

However, the policy has some drawbacks as well. The main one is that any scientific research has some degree of uncertainty due to the fact that the main purpose of science is to discover and reveal novel data. Consequently, implementation of the policy will impede scientific endeavor in almost all fields from biology and genetics to physics and chemistry. But what does this policy mean for public? Why should we care? The answer is simple, the fulfillment of the policy will not allow us to find, for instance, a cure for cancer and other dangerous diseases and illnesses which harass the humankind for century due to the fact that medical experiments always have some degree of uncertainly of their result.

Furthermore, progress of our knowledge will stop as well owing to the fact that without researches funded by government, scholars will not be able to conduct fundamental researches which are aimed beyond our today understanding because their results are always unclear by definition. At the same time, this type of researches are extremely important for the science and consequently for the mankind. The reason is that they create a foundation or bases for future researches. For instance, researches of radio waves, nuclear energy and semi-conductors are three examples of fundamental researches without which we would not have had cell-phones, computers and nuclear energy.

In conclusion, the proposed policy has some positive and negative consequences and the drawbacks definitely outweigh the policy merits because with the implementation of the proposal the science will not be able to continue its development further.