Issue 119
"When research priorities are being set for science, education, or any other area, themost important question to consider is: How many people's lives will be improved if theresults are successful?"
Should researchers focus on areas that are likely to result in the greatest benefit to themost people, as the speaker suggests? I agree insofar as areas of research certain toresult in immediate and significant benefits for society should continue to be a priority. Yet,strictly followed, the speaker's recommendation would have a harmful chilling effect onresearch and new knowledge. This is particularly true in the physical sciences, asdiscussed below.
Admittedly, scientific research whose societal benefits are immediate, predictable, andprofound should continue to be a high priority. For example, biotechnology research isproven to help cure and prevent diseases; advances in medical technology allow for safer,less invasive diagnosis and treatment; advances in genetics help prevent birth defects;advances in engineering and chemistry improve the structural integrity of our buildings,roads, bridges, and vehicles; information technology enables education; andcommunication technology facilitates global peace and participation in the democraticprocess. To demote any of these research areas to a lower priority would be patentlyfoolhardy, considering their proven benefits to so many people.
However, this is not to say that research whose benefits are less immediate or clearshould be given lower priority. For three reasons, all avenues of scientific research shouldbe afforded equal priority. First of all, if we strictly follow the speaker's suggestion, whowould decide which areas of research are more worthwhile than others? Researcherscannot be left to decide. Given a choice, they will pursue their own special areas ofinterest, and it is highly unlikely that all researchers could reach a fully informedconsensus as to what areas are most likely to help the most people. Nor can thesedecisions be left to regulators and legislators, who would bring to bear their own quirkynotions about what is worthwhile, and whose susceptibility to influence-peddlers renders
them untrustworthy in any event. A telling example of the inherent danger of setting"official" research priorities involves the Soviet government's attempts during the 1920sto not only control the direction and the goals of its scientists' research but also to distortthe outcome of that research--ostensibly for the greatest good of the greatest number ofpeople. During the 1920s the Soviet government quashed certain areas of scientificinquiry, destroyed entire research facilities and libraries, and caused the suddendisappearance of many scientists who were viewed as threats the state's authority. Notsurprisingly, during this period no significant scientific advances occurred under theauspices of the Soviet government. Secondly, to compel all researchers to focus only oncertain areas would be to force many to waste their true talents. For example, imaginerelegating today's preeminent astrophysicist Stephen Hawking to research theeffectiveness of behavioral modification techniques in the reform of violent criminals.Admittedly, this example borders on hyperbole. Yet the aggregate effect of realistic caseswould be to waste the intellectual talents of our world's researchers. Moreover, lackinggenuine interest or motivation a researcher would be unlikely to contribute meaningfullyto his or her "assigned" field. Thirdly, it is difficult to predict which research avenues willultimately lead to the greatest contributions to society. Research areas whose benefitsare certain often break little new ground, and in the long term so-called "cutting-edge"research whose potential benefits are unknown often prove most useful to society. Onecurrent example involves terraforming---creating biological life and a habitableatmosphere where none existed before. This unusual research area does notimmediately address society's pressing social problems. Yet in the longer term it might benecessary to colonize other planets in order to ensure the survival of the human race; andafter all, what could be a more significant contribution to society than preventing itsextinction?
In sum, when it comes to setting priorities for research, at least in the sciences, thespeaker goes too far by implying that research whose benefits are unknown are not worthpursuing. After all, any research worth doing delves into the unknown. In the final analysis,the only objective of research should be to discover truths, whatever they might be-- notto implement social policy.
用户评论