At present, scientific research across the world is carried out and controlled sometimes by
governments, sometimes by private companies. While there are some arguments in
favour of scientific research by corporations, I agree with the view that this should be
funded and supervised by the state.
The private sector argues that it is willing to undertake scientific research, but there are
two significant dangers in this. In terms of the quality and objectivity of the research
itself, corporations which carry this out may be tempted to manipulate results in order to
maximize profits. There have been numerous scandals as a result of new products being
introduced hurriedly after inadequate trials. For example thalidomide, developed by a
German drug company, resulted in the birth of thousands of malformed children. From
an ethical perspective, leaving research into areas such as genetic engineering in the
hands of corporations may have profound social consequences –such as GM crops, with
unproven effects which may destroy whole ecosystems as a result of meddling with
nature.
Although governments have to allocate resources to many areas of public spending, it is
essential that they be responsible for scientific research. Firstly, the highest standards can
be set by providing funding for university departments to carry out high-quality
research designed to benefit society, not to break into new markets or to gain a
competitive edge. Knowledge thus gained can be shared worldwide throughout the
academic community. Secondly, government-decision making is the best way to
prioritize expenditure on specific areas of research, taking into consideration the needs
of society, both present and future. One example is the development of renewable
energy to meet growing demands.
In conclusion, I agree strongly with the view that governments should bear sole
responsibility for scientific research.
At present,
scientific
research
across the world
is carried
out and controlled
sometimes
by
governments
,
sometimes
by private
companies
. While there are
some
arguments
in
favour
of
scientific
research
by corporations, I
agree
with the view that this should be
funded
and supervised by the state.
The private sector argues that it is willing to undertake
scientific
research
,
but
there are
two
significant
dangers
in this. In terms of the quality and objectivity of the
research
itself, corporations which carry this out may
be tempted
to manipulate results in order to
maximize
profits. There have been numerous scandals
as a result
of new products
being
introduced
hurriedly
after inadequate trials.
For example
thalidomide, developed by
a
German drug
company
, resulted in the birth of thousands of malformed children. From
an ethical perspective, leaving
research
into areas such as genetic engineering in the
hands of corporations may have profound social consequences –such as GM crops, with
unproven effects which may
destroy
whole ecosystems
as a result
of meddling with
nature
.
Although
governments
have to
allocate resources to
many
areas of public spending, it is
essential
that they be responsible for
scientific
research
.
Firstly
, the highest standards can
be set
by providing funding for university departments to carry out high-quality
research designed to benefit society, not to break into new markets or to gain a
competitive
edge. Knowledge
thus
gained can
be shared
worldwide throughout
the
academic
community.
Secondly
,
government
-decision making is the best way to
prioritize expenditure on specific areas of
research
, taking into consideration the needs
of
society, both present and future. One example is the development of
renewable
energy
to
meet
growing demands.
In conclusion
, I
agree
strongly
with the view that
governments
should bear sole
responsibility
for
scientific
research
.