More money should be poured into teaching science rather than other subjects. Do you agree or disagree?

People’s interest in science grows increasingly popular in today’s world. A few believe that science is the key to all problems in our life, while others view it as equal as other fields and claim that such a great amount of investment in teaching science would be unfair for other subjects. I totally agree with the latter view. Firstly, proponents of favoring science teaching over others contend that such significant allocation for it is greatly conducive to economic development of a country. Take America as an example. With billions of dollars consumed to sponsor scientific researches and other activities of teaching at school, greater economic alternatives, based on the application of this subject, have been found to revolutionize the world and enrich this country in no time, despite its late historical formation. However, would our nation really progress without the support of other equally key industries, for example, health-care, sports and arts? Only after people are well taught the way to take care of themselves by following a good diet and nurture their love for arts can they have enough stamina to turn their artistic minds into wonderful creations. Facts have also indicated that as a result of higher living standards, people’s concern about arts and their well-being is also more demanding, which urges government to equitably address these needs as well. The appearance of design schools, instead of only science ones in the academic world, are typical examples that show their crucial roles. Another problem is that teachers of other subjects would feel de-motivated when governments suddenly make light of the importance of their subjects, while science teachers become centers of the world. Secondly, more people will fall in love with science, by dint of this policy, and more genius were born. It might be true that science used to be seen as a prosaic subject, and now thanks to more flows of cash given to it, people have more motivation to pursue this field. Nevertheless, growing investment in it does not mean that it has more financial privileges than other subjects. In fact, the over-emphasis on science is more likely to discourage other children who are, unfortunately, born not to be encoded with a genetic flair for science, but for other fields. Hence, despite government’s significant investment in this subject and relentless endeavor to inculcate in their mind the love for it, these children see this counter-productive, possibly resulting in a huge waste of finance and turning their beloved schools into military base where they are coerced to follow, instead of listening to their inner desire. The outcome of this scenario is that the world would, for sure, be devoid of creative artists who give birth to spontaneous poets, but full of machine-like children. Besides, seeing science as a money-making field and promising aids by government, people, including students and teachers, move to this area, not out of their true passion. Also, as there goes a saving “necessity is the mother of invention”, scientists such as Newton, Albert Einstein and Thomas Edison could still give birth to ever-lasting inventions, despite their deep poverty. In a word, it is not more money that the society would progress, but rather passion and other factors. In the final analysis, I totally disagree with this policy for its negative impacts on teachers, students, the true meaning of science subject, and long-term growth of a nation.