Governments should support scientific
research if it does not have any practical use.
================
There is some debate as to governments should
have to support scientific research which does not have any practical uses.
Some people might say that it totally waste of money because it is less likely
to earn money. However, in my opinion, government should have to investigate
their money into those researches for the following reasons.
First, implemented science or engineering for
commercial uses has its principle on non-practical scientific researches. As we
could not learn accounting unless you have learned basic mathematics, we cannot
build up practical research without elementary researches. Every research is useful
in the science fields. For example, engineering products from China has been
developed in very impressive rates; what makes those speeds? Some researchers
answered that the wide ranges of scientific researches in China have been
boosted their successful development today.
Second, we do not know which research is
useful for the future. Even though it looks useless at the moment, thing could
be changed all the time. Many of greatest scientific discoveries were not
welcomed at their moment. Yet, in decades, it could be changed to popular one. For
example, researches about psychology have been ignored; however, it is very
popular nowadays because those researches turned out to be useful for
commercial marketing and advertising. Likewise, many of practical researches
today were developed at those unpopular ages.
In
summary, I believe governments should support non-practical scientific researches. Not only because they do not know its usefulness
at that moment, but also because the research could be a root for the practical
research.
Governments should support scientific research (even ) if it does not have any practical use.
There is some debate as to governments should have to support scientific research which does not have any practical uses (omit:s). Some people might say that it (is a) totally waste of money because it is less likely to earn money. However, in my opinion, government (s) should have to investigate their money into those researches for the following reasons.
First, implemented science or engineering for commercial uses has its principle on non-practical scientific researches. As we could not learn accounting unless you have learned basic mathematics, we cannot build up practical research without elementary researches. Every research is useful in the science fields. For example, engineering products from China has (have) been developed in very impressive rates; what makes those speeds? Some researchers answered that the wide ranges of scientific researches in China have been boosted their successful development today.
Second, we do not know which research is useful for the future. Even though it looks useless at the moment, thing (s) could be changed all the time. Many of (the) greatest scientific discoveries were not welcomed at their (the) moment. Yet, in decades, it could be changed to (a) popular one. For example, researches about psychology have been ignored; however, it is very popular nowadays because those researches turned out to be useful for commercial marketing and advertising. Likewise, many of practical researches today were developed at those unpopular ages.
In summary, I believe governments should support non-practical scientific researches. Not only because they do not know its usefulness at that moment, but also because the research could be a root for the practical research.