Government should not fund any scientific
research whose consequences, either medical or ethical, are unclear.
Unclear consequences can be benign or malign.
Government should evaluate ethically the consequences before funding.
Much research may give surprising results, which could be very
benign, hence unclear consequences should
not be the judging factor but the benigness of the research and the
successfulness of the research.
Science is a research field, where consequences
are known only after exhaustive research. Is Government funding a
science research or a perceived beneficial consequence of a research?
It is well known in Science that what is there is surprising. Value
of electricity was very less known when it was discovered.
Government has banned researching in few areas
perceived as unethical like genetic cloning of humans. When
Government funds a mind reading research, where human mind can be
treated as electromotive system and manipulated from remote, the
consequences could be devastating. Such a technology can be used by
evil doers. Government should not fund evil
Government may continue to fund general research like
developing a new molecule with better properties. What is better may
be unknown, but it may turn out to be a superconductor. What is the
assurance that a boosted result will not yield results? Any activity
which is motivated succeed. Government by motivating a research by
money is increasing the probability of success. Government may
motivate by other means, by sending the researchers to foreign
When government says, Tell me the consequences and i
will fund you, the research team is pressurized with deadlines and
As i know science, science is not deadline based reward
program of new technology but requires brilliant mind to uncover
mysteries and deduce technologies.
Does that mean, Government should keep pouring money
on all research work, irrespective of the success rate of such work
in terms of papers, patents and thesis? Government should stop
sponsoring research work which are visibly of no use over a period of
time. Government should sponsor creative newbie ideas and those work
which have high success rate. Any tree which starts giving fruits
will do so for its lifetime. Once a research work is identified
yielding, irrespective of short term consequence, funding is
mandatory. What needs to be avoided is preventing a 'work for fund'
program in research, researchers may have salary but their research
should be funded only when it deserves funding based on the past
successes and future promises.
Overall, my response is very clear. Government must
ban unethical research and fund creative ideas whose consequences may
be surprising. Government should continue to fund all successful
research and stop funding unyielding research which is determined
over a long term.