In the world where most countries lack financial freedom, a question of whether government funding should mostly be directed to scientific research has sparked debates. While state-funded scientific studies yield tangle results, fully neglecting other disciplines as “less practical” would be counter intuitive. Acknowledging the validity of both arguments, I contend that the most forward-thinking approach lies into the balance
Those believing that scientific research should be prioritised base their arguments on the practicality of such studies. Large scientific research, technologies and medicine can lead to some breakthroughs, creating higher returns and directly influencing people’ s lives – all of which are the progressive and intellectual society. A good case at this point is China, being revolutionized in the late 18th century, transforming the job market as well as reducing the need for manual labor to perform regular and hazardous tasks. Although this idea raised concerns about unemployment, new job sectors were generated in STEM fields, further stimulating societal and economic growth
Human progress, on the other hand, is not Individually measured by scientific developments; humanitarian and social science are equally vital for a well-rounded society. Studying and cultivating human beings’s quality such as empathy, and improving emotional intelligence and cultural understanding shapes morality and ethicality – outcomes that pure science cannot produce alone. A great example can be the renewed interest in research into genealogy, which is both socially and psychologically beneficial. Tracing their ancestral roots, people can develop a better understanding of their identities and cultural evolution, fostering social cohesion and intergenerational connections.
While both arguments provide with a sense of trust, I believe that the governments should adopt a balanced funding model rather than pointing certain disciplines as ‘ unnecessary ‘ by investing in science, countries may take to the first place the motivation of economical needs, as technological inventions usually strengthen a nation’s competitiveness on a global scale. In this context, artistic and historical research may pale in comparison, but entirely diverting funds from these areas would undermine cultural and moral aspects of societies. The most pragmatic approach is to promote a diversified academic ecosystem, where experts from various disciplines collaborate.
In conclusion, allocating more resources into scientific research can be justified from an economic perspective, yet for a more holistic development, governments should not underestimate the importance of humanitarian subject and social sciences. In my opinion, both areas are mutually reinforcing, so state funds should be directed evenly