- Claim: Researchers should not limit their investigations to only those areas in which they expect to discover something that has an immediate, practical application. Reason: It is impossible to predict the outcome of a line of research with any certainty.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.________________________________________
One may say that the value of scientific research should not be assessed solely by its practical applicability. In some sense, it is true that too much emphasis on rationality and pragmatism is the cause of distortion of sciences and their philistine (mercenary) culture. From my personal view, however, practical utility and potential contribution to humans’ living can never be separated from the primary function of any scientific research.
Of course, few would agree that the merit of any scientific research is found only in its impact on our daily living. Especially, if practical utility is defined only as the possible conversion of research and development into initiators’ financial interests, I strongly agree with the claim that researchers should not limit their investigations to only those areas that promise certain immediate, practical application. In fact, many earnest professors in engineering have deplored the current tendency of their disciplines to become corrupted and vulgarized as their “rational” (actually too much mundane) societies emphasize the importance of “technology that engenders values.” As a consequence, most students in computer science, like students in other fields of engineering, are concerned far more about the possibility of their knowledge to be applied into certain types of venture firm than about understanding fundamental, theoretical principles of programming and complex algorithms.
This, however, does not necessarily mean that current penchant for the practicality should be the object of curse. When it comes to the original cause of the emergence of modern science, its actual contribution to human well-being can never be trivialized. For what other reasons have many societies paid so much respect and investment to scientific research? Modern societies did not stint on scientific research exactly because they believed sciences would present greater returns for the investments.
Further, the essential importance of practical applicability in scientific research appears clear when it comes to the productive and proper assessment of individual results of sciences. Today, we live in a society in which thousands of purportedly valuable research outputs are produced even in a week or a month; in this situation, without clear criteria to judge the value of each, neither governments nor corporations might be convinced of which projects deserve additional funding. As for now, practical utility of research seems the only realistic criterion to do it.
Finally, I strongly believe that its practical utility and relevance to life of ordinary people is inseparable from adequate assessment of any scientific research in that this standard can prevent heated, endless, but feckless, unproductive ideological debates prevalent in modern scholarship. Especially in the area of social sciences, theories and speculations based less on practical relevance than on certain dogmatic beliefs, though some argue that they have also certain values in the long course of understanding of human and society, generally turn out to be counterproductive in creating truly meaningful vision in the area. This also supports the importance of utilitarian approach in evaluating science and scientific research.
Basically academic institutes are not factories or mills. Yet, they are also required to serve for the society and produce something immediately significant for lives of people. In this sense, I think the concepts of “research for research’s sake” or “noble sciences” are outdated and anachronistic. Science and research in general should also be guided by clear, utilitarian goals in today’s world.