Some people opine that giving priority to science-based reseach only on the basis of their economic merits is not only narrow-mined but aslo hinders the advancements of the the socity in the long-term while others reject this notion and emphasize that to maintain sustainablity of progress, it is necessary that recources are being alocated to research with their economical value in-sight. I, personally, align with the first idea. While providing ample opportunity for scietific reseach and study have been the corner stone of humanty’s greatest achievements, it is undeniable that with the limited resources societies have, some studies, while intersting from a academic perspetive, do not provide a economic growth for citizens.
On the one hand, attaching importance to scientific studies just due to their potential economic benfits, seems rather narrow-minded and harmful to the progress of the society. It is often argued that what may look out of realm of possibility and too ambitious for today’s humanity, may in the future become their greatest contribution to our species. Furthermore, undermining results of a reseach cannot be measured in economical term, for instance in humanities, not only may harm the morale of the academic groups but also promot a culture of pursuing pure economic benefits in reseachers which in turn may restroy ethos of the society. To illustrate, there have been many research projects by Nicolay Tesla,that were deemed useless at the time of their conception but bow are hailed as the greatest achievement of humanity. I believe that reseaches, regardless of their economic mertis should be a priority for the society if a nation is to advance continuesely.
On the other hand, some believe that to maintain a continuese growth for the society, it is vital to allocate resources only to the projects that are economically feasible. They, quite accurately, cite many precieved failed studied that consume a hug portion of the resources a country could barely spare. They argue that if these budgets were dedicated to other much needed areas such as education and health a society would thrive. Furthermore, by incorporating a robust vetting process with wich only economically benefitial studies would be considered for funds, unnecessary expanditures in academia would be prevnted and also this would encourage sciuectific bodies to be more pragmatistic in their reseaches. For instance, there are many studies conducted in humanities that are too expensive due to the scale of the projects but present little results financial terms. While I can aknowlege this apparent lack of tangible financial benefits, I firmly believe that we simple cannot reject their merits and impact on the spritual and cultural progess of the society.
In conclusion, while some people think that giving priority to science based studies based on their financial return is unwise and harful for the society, others reject this notion and argue that to have a prosperous socity we need a careful allocation of resources to studies. I agree with the first group. Although some reseach may seem too imprtactical, they can actually prople progess of a sociey however, the limited funds and budgets can also be considered in choosing the projects to invest in.