Government always plays a major role in promoting scientific research, and there is much conjecture over whether government should sponsor scientific research regardless of its practicability. As far as I am concerned, though researches which can immediately solve problems need strong government's support, scientific research, even if there is no practical use, should also be supported by government.
First and foremost, scientific research, more often than not, have no practical use at first, while they may turn out to have huge potential in the end. So the governments should not narrow their sight only in applied science which can bring benefit immediate. Neither the discovery of X-ray nor the invention of Penicillin was considered valuable at the beginning, but both of them help humans a lot later. Another example is the electricity. No one had foreseen the tremendous improvement of human civilization it has brought about when scientists first started this program. Suppose the government had refused to support the research of electricity just because it was useless at that time, what the world we live in today would be like?
Second, lots of researches based on theories in fundamental subjects, such as physics, can hardly be used directly, so they were supposed to have no practical use at all. However, without advancement in these theoretical fields, how can other subjects that are based on them make great breakthroughs? Take Albert Einstein's renowned theory of Relativity as an example. It is true that this research contributed nothing to practical use-it cannot directly bring great conveniences or economic benefit to our daily life. However, it is a foundational pillar of modern science. Many brilliant inventions and discoveries were on the basis of Relativity. Without government's support, how could he purchase equipments to do his researches? As a result, neither Einstein could put forward his theory of relativity, nor there could be subsequent significant breakthroughs in the physics field or even the whole society.
In addition, government also needs to support studies in social science which are useless for practice as well. Researches in social science make people become aware of what the society is, know more about themselves, and better integrate into the environment we live in. For example, Jane Goodall spent her 45 years on studies of chimpanzee social and family interactions. Though research in chimpanzees can't bring about practical utility, it helps us form a comprehensive and correct understanding towards them. The discovery of tool-making among chimpanzees during Jane Goodall's study convinced scientists to reconsider the definition of being human, because tool-making was considered the defining difference between humans and other animals before. Undoubtedly, researches in social science reshape our perception of ourselves and our role as humans in the world.
In a nutshell, scientific researches, even if there is no practical use, may become the foundation of science, may reshape human understanding of the living world, and the potential value of these researches may be a necessary part of life in the future. So government should support scientific researches even the researches have no practical use now.
First and foremost, scientific research, more often than not, have no practical use at first, while they may turn out to have huge potential in the end. So the governments should not narrow their sight only in applied science which can bring benefit immediate. Neither the discovery of X-ray nor the invention of Penicillin was considered valuable at the beginning, but both of them help humans a lot later. Another example is the electricity. No one had foreseen the tremendous improvement of human civilization it has brought about when scientists first started this program. Suppose the government had refused to support the research of electricity just because it was useless at that time, what the world we live in today would be like?
Second, lots of researches based on theories in fundamental subjects, such as physics, can hardly be used directly, so they were supposed to have no practical use at all. However, without advancement in these theoretical fields, how can other subjects that are based on them make great breakthroughs? Take Albert Einstein's renowned theory of Relativity as an example. It is true that this research contributed nothing to practical use-it cannot directly bring great conveniences or economic benefit to our daily life. However, it is a foundational pillar of modern science. Many brilliant inventions and discoveries were on the basis of Relativity. Without government's support, how could he purchase equipments to do his researches? As a result, neither Einstein could put forward his theory of relativity, nor there could be subsequent significant breakthroughs in the physics field or even the whole society.
In addition, government also needs to support studies in social science which are useless for practice as well. Researches in social science make people become aware of what the society is, know more about themselves, and better integrate into the environment we live in. For example, Jane Goodall spent her 45 years on studies of chimpanzee social and family interactions. Though research in chimpanzees can't bring about practical utility, it helps us form a comprehensive and correct understanding towards them. The discovery of tool-making among chimpanzees during Jane Goodall's study convinced scientists to reconsider the definition of being human, because tool-making was considered the defining difference between humans and other animals before. Undoubtedly, researches in social science reshape our perception of ourselves and our role as humans in the world.
In a nutshell, scientific researches, even if there is no practical use, may become the foundation of science, may reshape human understanding of the living world, and the potential value of these researches may be a necessary part of life in the future. So government should support scientific researches even the researches have no practical use now.