It is argued that scientist should focus on particular brance instead of their interest subject . What extent do you agree or disagree?

At first look, the argument that scientists and researchers should do study in areas that will benefit the general public may appear persuasive. However, following more reflection, we will see that selecting research issues exclusively on the basis of the amount of individuals who will be served is often harmful to scientific advancement. Instead, I believe that scientists should be able to undertake research according to their own personal interests. One of the main reasons I disagree with the proposal is that scientists are naturally motivated to focus on topics where they have passion and talent, and where they are most likely to succeed. However, the domains in which researchers thrive may not always correspond to those that provide the greatest contribution to society. Consider the case of Steven Hawking, who was forced to give up his interests in astrophysics in order to devote his research to cancer therapy, a topic that appears to have a direct influence on the well-being of more people. Hawking would be unlikely to make a meaningful contribution in his "assigned" subject if he lacked true interest or desire, as he did in Astrophysics. As a result, forcing scientists to research popular topics will be a waste of their genuine intellectual abilities. Another reason why we should not set a pre-determined research goal is that, as empirical evidence shows, many of the most important research projects in human history, which have proven to be truly beneficial to the entire human race, began with scientific whims that initially appeared eccentric or even meaningless. For example, Hippasus' discovery of irrational numbers and Copernicus' model of the Sun-centered cosmos, to mention a few, were the most heterodoxy theories at the time and were useless to social advantages. Nonetheless, these views eventually educated the public and formed the groundwork for practically all current scientific subjects. Those in support of the proposition may argue that research efforts in some academic fields, such as literature and the arts, appear to be purely a personal pursuit for pleasure and do not contribute to the common good. This fallacious reasoning ignores the reality that a thorough grasp of the humanities provides us with the knowledge we need to develop scientific and sociological research. Progress in painting methods, for example, encouraged scientific efforts in fields such as anatomy and astronomy throughout the Renaissance. Humanism's philosophical concept also led to cultural and religious transformations. As a result, despite the lack of a concrete link, intellectual inquiries in fields such as literature and the arts have made substantial contributions to scientific and cultural progress. To summarise, I feel it is preferable not to impose any pre-existing constraints on scientific inquiry, such as "to benefit the largest number of people in society. " After all, scientists who devote their skills to fields in which they are passionate are more likely to create research that will benefit the entire globe. Furthermore, no one person or group of people can agree on what research would actually help human civilization in the long term.