Scientists and other researchers should focus their research on areas that are likely to benefit the greatest number of people.

Since the first human gazed up at the night sky, human beings have never stopped acquiring knowledge and attempting to understand the surrounding environment. With the help of these traits, human society build up Modern civilization by a lot of scientific discoveries. However, the issue of whether scientists and other researchers should focus their research on areas that are likely to benefit the greatest number of people is emerged by ongoing debate. Some opponents of scientific pragmatism argue that this assertion is void value for it hamper the advancement of scientific progress. Many scientific discoveries and inventions, they say, have often led to benefits another fields，and it is difficult to predict which field of research will ultimately provide contributions to another fields. For example, the discovery and utilization of nuclear power. Nuclear power is the product of military research whose purpose obviously went against benefits of the majority of people at the first time. However, after 1980, Nuclear power became an essential response of human being to climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, since it is one of the most low-carbon energy sources. It is also famous for its reliable and cost-effective. Therefore, it is highly unlikely find out the surest path to predict the beneficial technologies and discoveries, not to mention predict the synergizing results of discoveries in separate fields, we should not confine scientific research to only some fields.
 
Another line of complaint stems from the belief that researcher's passion for science are hurt by limiting their focus on a certain area. We cannot deny the fact that intense personal interest is the primary motivation, which assists scientists to go across a lot of barriers of science. Without the free choice of research topic, scientists would no doubt to decreased rates of discovery for most scientists compelled to alter their attention. Put into another perspectives, this is censorship. When combined with the next point this becomes an critical piece of evidence against the statement.
 
However, it is still reasonable that encouraging scientists invest their time and energy in the field benefits society. First of all, scientific research and its results not only benefit humanity, but also threaten human living environment, such as air pollution, water contamination. Secondly, most of discoveries cause moral confusion haunt on the head of people, and even stir public panic. Genetically modified food seems to release the pressure of food's shortage, but the public begin to worry whether this type of food will give rise to have cancer. Nuclear energy surely poses many advantages, but its danger is also disastrous. Japan earthquake caused the Fukushima nuclear power plant leak and pollute the environment of Japan and neighboring countries. Facing with these horrorable situation, we can understand the concern behind this assertion.
 
In light of the above points, it is understandable that forcing scientists and researchers to pay attention of fields most likely to benefit the majority of people, but its drawbacks highly overshadow its benefits. In fact, by removing the synergistic effect of multi-disciplinary research, decreasing overall scientific passion, such a policy may actually decrease the amount of beneficial discoveries made.