There is an ongoing debate about whether government financial support for postgraduate research should be only given for scientific studies that are considered useful. Although it is reasonable to prioritize research that can solve immediate problems, I disagree that less useful research should be excluded from government funding because it can lead to unexpected discoveries and bring benefits in the future.
The primary reason for this is that the practical value of scientific research cannot be always predicted. Some studies may not have clear purpose at first, but their findings can later be used to develop important technologies. For example, MRI scanners were developed as a result of research into fundamental principles of physics, which was not originally aimed at creating a medical scanning device. Today, MRI is widely used by doctors to examine internal organs and diagnose various diseases. This shows that research which seems less useful at present can eventually have significant benefits for society.
Another reason is that some research can be useful in the long term, even if it does not have obvious purpose at first. It is because a scientific discoveries can be used by other researchers for developing new technologies or treatments in the future. The Human Genome Project, for instance, was mainly designed to improve scientists understanding DNA of human, rather than to create a specific product. However, the knowledge gained from this project have later contributed for developments in the medicine and biotechnology. Therefore, governments should not reject research simply because its benefits cannot be seen immediately.
Admittedly, governments have limited money, so it is reasonable to give more support for researches that can solve important problems. For example, research about serious diseases or renewable energy can provide practical solutions for society, however, it is difficult to predict which research will be useful in the future. If the government only will fund projects with clear practical benefits, they might miss important discoveries. Therefore, although prioritizing useful research is reasonable, completely refusing a less useful research would be a mistake.
In conclusion, although governments should consider the usefulness of research when deciding how to spend limited funds, I disagree that they should only support research with immediate practical benefits. Some research can lead to unexpected discoveries and provide important benefits in the future, and also government should support both practical and fundamental research.