Researchers should  not limit their investigations to only those areas in which they expect to discover something that has an immediate, practical application

It is impossible to predict the outcome of a line of research with any certainty

  Research is thoughtful investigative process that often leads to discovery. In recent times,  with the knowledge explosion, one is exposed to an unfathomable amount of date and umpteen avenues for exploration. In  such a scenario, choosing an area of investigation in  research is often difficult.  There’s an argument that researchers should  not limit their investigations to only those areas in which they expect to discover something that has an immediate, practical application, as it is impossible to predict the outcome of a line of research with any certainty. I partially agree with this argument , though I feel that if funding  for research  is limited to the extent that one has to choose between  the two, then lines of research  with practical applications, the ones with  foreseeable  benefit to the public,  either immediate or longterm should be favored over others  areas of research with uncertain benefits.

Should we just focus only  on researches with immediate benefits or one with practical applications? I don’t think so.  Alexander Flemings discovery on penicillin. He was investigating the properties of a bacterium called Staphylococcus when he serendipitousy discovered penicllin, the first antibiotic ever, isolated from mold which overgrew in his culture plates.  Another example is in space research. At its outset, space research in United states did not seem to have an immediate or a practical application other than exporing the universe and  may be  surpassing  USSR in the space race.  However during the course of the research process, scientist were able to develop technology that would help to preserve perishable foofd items  longterm and ways to maintain  human body temperature at extremes of climates.  Many of this research now finds use in emergency kits. The satellites launched now play a major role in the mass communication system.  Another example is

 With advances in medical research, we have made great strides in the past century. Small pox, one of deadliest infectious diseases has been eradicated from the planet.   New cases of Polio, another debilitating disease are virtually unheard of, at least in the developed countries.  Several malignancies now have definitive treatment. Should a research in developing say a cancer vaccine be encouraged more in favor of say, research on the mating characteristics of polar bears?  In case of unlimited funding, both options could be entertained equally – you may never know what   might be learned from the latter study.  May be the researcher may come up with a break through neurotransmitter that can arouse a comatose patient or isolate pheromones strengthening  on a male female relationship or something totally unpredictable, but phenomenally useful.  However if funding is limited, there’s no question that the cancer research  one should get priority, as there is a foreseeable and more likely  benefit for the cancer patients.

In summary, I believe that research in a variety of fields should be encouraged regardless of their immediate or practical application, however when financing a research  or staffing a research proposition is a pressing issue, the one which results  in  greater common good should be favored.