Many would argue that scientific research requires a degree of oversight from the relevant governmental authorities. In my opinion, properly handled, this is a sensible and necessary policy. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this?
Research has been a vital part of the technological advancement we are experiencing in present times, especially those conducted scientifically. Some individuals would say it is a good option for government bodies to ignore scientific research to a certain extent. Although this is a policy that is both ideal and necessary, it brings its own benefits and drawbacks.
Firstly the benefits, although research conducted scientifically has really helped us in all sectors, they tend to be wasteful most often than not, the government bodies turning a blind eye to the funding of these researches will help in saving more funds that can be used to support other sectors, for example, Center for Disease Control (CDC) refused to fund research on the cure to HIV and chose to fund malaria prevention, which later turned out to be a good decision as the research failed.
However, despite this oversight’s benefits, ignoring scientific research can also be detrimental to us, as this will reduce our advancement technologically and prevent us from finding the solution to lingering problems. Take, for instance, the health sector, and if the relevant bodies support this research, it will be challenging for us to find an effective solution to some health issues. This is evident through the lack of a cure for HIV, as many bodies deem the disease incurable and do not bother to invest in research conducted to find a cure.
Research conducted by scientists can sometimes be wasteful, which justifies the oversight by relevant government authorities. However, since this lack of interest can bring drawbacks for technological advancements, these bodies should be pragmatic in supporting this research through proper assessment and outcome identification.
Follow Us on IELTSDATA Twitter
