Please rate and any feedback is appreciated. Thanks!



The claim that scientists and researchers ought to pursue their research in areas that are likely to benefit the great public may seem compelling at the first glance. However, upon further consideration, we will find out that choosing research questions solely based on the number of people it will serve is often counterproductive in promoting scientific progress. Instead, I believe that scientists should be free to pursue their individual interests in conducting research.

A fundamental reason why I disagree with the recommendation is that, by human nature, scientists are motivated to focus on areas where their passion and talents lie, and where they are most plausible to achieve success. However, the fields that researchers excel do not always coincide with what contributes the most to the larger society. For example, imagine Steven Hawking was obliged to relinquish his interests in Astrophysics and instead transferred the focus of his research to cancer treatment, a field that seems to have a direct impact on the well-beingness of more people. Without genuine enthusiasm or motivation, Hawking would be unlikely to contribute significantly in his “assigned” field, as he had in Astrophysics. Thus, If scientists are forced to study the popular areas, it will be a waste of their true intellectual talents.

Another reason why we should not set a pre-established goal of the research is that, as empirical evidence shows, many of the greatest research in human history, which are truly beneficial to the entire human race, have started with scientific whims that appeared eccentric or even meaningless at the first place. For instance, Hippasus’s discovery of irrational numbers and Copernicus’s model of the Sun-centered universe, to name a few, had all been the most heterodoxy theory and irrelevant to societal benefits at their times. Nevertheless, their theories eventually enlightened the public and laid the foundation for almost all fields of modern science.

Those who are in favor of the suggestion may point out that in some academic areas, such as literature and arts, research activities appear merely a personal quest for pleasure and do not contribute to the welfare of the general population. This specious argument overlooks the fact that in-depth understandings of humanities afford us wisdom to advance scientific and societal studies. As an example, progress in art techniques during Renaissance influenced the pursuits of knowledge in scientific areas including Anatomy and Astronomy. Also, the philosophical idea of humanism directly led to societal and religious reforms. Therefore, despite the lack of tangible connection, intellectual inquires in areas like literature and arts have contributed significantly to scientific and societal development.

In sum, I believe it is better not to set any pre-established limitations on scientific research, such as “to benefit the greatest number of people in the society”. After all, scientists who commit their talents to areas of their enthusiasm are most likely to produce research to benefit the world. Besides, no individuals or social groups can make a unanimous judgment on what research will truly benefit human society in the long run.