The government should spend more money on medical research to protect citizens health rather than on protecting the environment Do you agree or disagree

Social members have sparked off a heated controversy over the role of medical research, in which it is argued to receive more public funding compared to that of environmental protection. Personally, I totally disagree with this view due to the following reasons.

To begin with, allocating resources to safeguarding the ecosystem should not be marginalized because of its implication to public health. Indeed, our environment, which is currently plagued with pollution and climate change, has been seen as a contributing factor to various dangerous diseases, so protecting it from abnormal modifications is believed to decline these ailments’ incidence. For example, when a switch from coal to solar energy was implemented in Seoul, accompanied by a fall in particulate matters amount, was proved to decrease the number of asthma patients by 30%. Therefore, providing funding for environmental protection, the government can adopt a multipurpose policy, not only fighting against heated environmental issues but also enhancing residents’ robustness. By contrast, if the proposal is neglected, medical research may not reap an adequate effectiveness, since citizens still expose to numerous health risks brought about by the contaminated surrounding area.

Additionally, a clean and pristine environment is claimed to promote the possibility of medical research. Specifically, in treatments for degenerative illnesses, many compounds bearing significant pharmacological effects are derived from flora and fauna, but, unfortunately, they are increasingly deprived of their natural habitat. Hence, prioritising expenditure on nature preservation can enormously support pharmaceutical industry by assuring the diversity in remedy sources. In fact, many people have justified that such efforts may be redundant, for artificial approach also can offer promising results for drug discovery. However, since patients are witnessed to respond better to nature – originated therapies, the higher biodiversity humankind has, the more likely we are to achieve optimised remedy for pressing health problems.

To conclude, it seems to me that any efforts preventing the exacerbation of environmental problems should not be overlooked because of its close relationship with health promotion.