Scientists and other researchers should focus their research on areas that are likely to benefit the greatest number of people Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoni

What topics should researchers and scientists take with the highest priority as their research candidates? Someone claims that scientists and researchers should mainly focus on research on areas likely to benefit for majority of people. In my humble view, it is true that such endeavor is capable to aggrandize social impact of scientific research. However, we should also notice that it might inevitably restrict with scope of research target. Furthermore, in order to guarantee prosperity of science, it is better to advocate multifarious innovations rather than dedicating on public interests.

To start off, it is beneficial for researchers to take researches associated with public benefits with higher priority, because it could benefit both scientific research and the society as a whole. In this first place, by dedicating with public interest, scientific research could gain more social recognition and therefore facilitate to disseminate wisdom and win general support from the public. This is of no doubt great promotion for scientific investigation in the long run. Furthermore, it is through converting arcane research into practical products that scientists could make great contribution for the whole society. Therefore, the demotic is able to understand importance of scientific research for them and give their fierce support for science in future. For supporting example, we can no further go for Alexander's contribution for effective antibiotic - Penicillin. At sights of mass of solider plagued by putrefaction during war, Alexander made his resolution to discover a better medicine to protect people from severe infection. After years of experiments and numerous failures, Penicillin, a most important antibiotic in history, had been extracted and produced in mass production. This great achievement in pharmacy have saved millions of people from the verge of death, which well proves the tremendous impact when scientists focus on public suffering.

However, tenable as such issue hold in certain circumstances, I have to contend that it might greatly abbreviate original scientific scope and therefore impede with further development of science and the society as a whole. To understand this point, we should further understand the essence of scientific research. In my viewpoint, science aims at exploration for the unknown and extending our knowledge boundary. In this sense, we can't predict whether certain research direction could generate significant consequence as we expected. But if when exclusively focusing on the public interest, it is more likely for us to curtail the original scientific scope and only restrict with a very limited subset. Additionally, considering that scientists already get accustomed to unfettered investigation, forcefully compelling them to only work with public interests might dampen their enthusiasm for research, which may let their work in stagnation. Moreover, if such approach comes into effect, many fundamental researches could inevitably become impacted and even terminated, as majority of them are relevant with practical usages and far away from public interest. However, without improvements for fundamental disciplines, many of our application fields could never move further, which is undoubtedly a tragic for our society.

Last but not least, given that scientific progress relies on multifarious innovations, the assumption that scientists should exclusively put effort on public benefits might become counterproductive in practice. Rather, we'd better to figure out a better approach to guarantee scientific pluralism at the very beginning. Considering complexity of how to cultivate scientific pluralism, we can't illustrate thoroughly in such a short response, but two major viewpoints could be mentioned here. The first one is that research projects that are initiated by elite scientists should be given further supports, since talented researchers are more likely to make great accomplishment when driven by their own interests. Additionally, as mentioned above, continual investment for fundamental disciplines, such as physics, mathematics, shouldn't stopped neither. Newtown's research work for Calculus is a perfect case in point. When Newtown had been intrigued by puzzle of calculus theory during his research work in gravity, he immediately made strive for learning and investigation work for calculus. Such endeavors benefit both Newtown's physics research and development of mathematic in his era. However, if as suggested in the issue, Newtown would only focus on public interest, we would never have chance to expect tremendous progress of calculus in Newtown's time.

In summary, while focusing on public benefits could help scientist win immediate recognition and more people to understand importance of research, such approach might backfire as its over-limited presupposed scope for research candidates. Therefore, we should advocate more pluralistic strategy to safeguard scientific scope, for the sake of further flourishing of science.