Scientists and other researchers should focus their research on areas that are likely to benefit the greatest number of people

可供老题库119 When research priorities are being set for science, education, or any other area, the most important question to consider is: How many people's lives will be improved if the results are successful （24+2）当研究的重点被置于科学、教育或者其他领域中时，最重要的问题就是要考虑如果研究获得成功会有多少人的生活得以改善。（同上）

I agree insofar as areas of research certain to result in immediate and significant benefits for society should continue to be a priority. Yet, strictly followed, the speaker's recommendation would have a harmful chilling effect on research and new knowledge.

1. Admittedly, scientific research whose societal benefits are immediate, predictable, and profound should continue to be a high priority.

2. However, this is not to say that research whose benefits are less immediate or clear should be given lower priority. First of all, if we strictly follow the speaker's suggestion, who would decide which areas of research are more worthwhile than others? Researchers cannot be left to decide.

3. Secondly, to compel all researchers to focus only on certain areas would be to force many to waste their true talents.

4. Thirdly, it is difficult to predict which research avenues will ultimately lead to the greatest contributions to society.

技术进步之改善人民生活

可供参考老题库40 Scholars and researchers should not be concerned with whether their work makes a contribution to the larger society. It is more important that they pursue their individual interests, however unusual or idiosyncratic those interests may seem. （

我们不应该仅仅关注学者和研究者的著作能否对社会做出贡献。更重要的是关注他们如何追求实现自己的兴趣，无论那些兴趣显得是多么的非同寻常。 From 194&重点（有译文）

//许多人认为科学和研究应当为整个社会服务，并根据这个原因得出研究者和学者都应当尽可能的从事相对来说更有利于社会的研究。尽管这个观点表面上看似乎正确，但是争论却因为对于contribute的这个词的不同看法而引起了，因为在人类社会中并没有统一的标准用来衡量什么学科要比另一些学科contributes more to the human society. 因此，让科学家们根据自己的兴趣进行研究最最好的解决上述问题的方法。

1、 首先，不可否认，确实有一些学科能够对当时社会发展起显著的推动作用。甚至一些学科就是为了解决社会问题而出现的，这些学科能够在短期内让整个社会受益，因此许多的政府和国际机构都投入了足够的资源和政策帮助科学家们从事这类的科学研究。比如，许多科学家们正在研究解决大气污染问题的方法，为了尽可能的减少大气污染对于人类生活的影响

2、 但在一段很长的时间里，判断什么样的研究最有利于社会的长远发展几乎不可能。正如经常被提到的，科学研究的主要目的是帮助人类认识他们所未知的事物，从这个观点出发，几乎所有的研究都是有利于社会的人们认识世界并能够帮助人们利用探索得到的知识改造世界的。比如，当年伽利略的自由落体定律，似乎并没有解决当时社会的任何问题，但是却成为后人发展物理学的基础并对人类社会的发展发挥了重要的作用。

3、 对于许多的科学家们来说，兴趣可能是他们选择研究课题的重要因素。首先，个人兴趣能够让科学家们更热衷于所从事的研究，相比之下，如果他们被迫选择一些他们并不感兴趣的fields研究不光会在短期内耗尽他们的积极性，而且还会很容易造成研究中的失误和疏忽。其次，科学家们很据自己兴趣选择研究领域能够让富有创新性和远见的科学家从事有利于人类社会长远发展的课题，并能够保持社会长期稳定的发展。相反，如果让所有的科学家从事几个有限数量的学科，虽然可能很快的解决社会问题，但是对未来的发展是有不利影响的。

//总之，任何科学家和学者都有选择喜欢研究的领域的权力，就像任何人都有选择穿自己喜欢衣服的权力一样。所有的科学研究从长远看都是有用的，不光包括那些新兴的用于解决短期社会问题的学科，同样也包含unusual or idiosyncratic fields of research.

可供参考老题库31（文中有，可搜索）

可供参考老题库119（文中有，可搜索）

可供参考老题库44 Government should not fund any scientific research whose consequences, either medical or ethical, are unclear.

政府不应该资助任何后果不明的科学研究，无论是医学方面还是伦理方面的。

可供参考老题库69 Government should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development"

政府应该对科学研究和发展尽量少地加以限制。

Should researchers focus on areas that are likely to result in the greatest benefit to the most people, as the speaker suggests? I agree insofar as areas of research certain to result in immediate and significant benefits for society should continue to be a priority. Yet, strictly followed, the speaker's recommendation would have a harmful chilling effect on research and new knowledge. This is particularly true in the physical sciences, as discussed below.

Admittedly, scientific research whose societal benefits are immediate, predictable, and profound should continue to be a high priority. For example, biotechnology research is proven to help cure and prevent diseases; advances in medical technology allow for safer, less invasive diagnosis and treatment; advances in genetics help prevent birth defects; advances in engineering and chemistry improve the structural integrity of our buildings, roads, bridges, and vehicles; information technology enables education; and communication technology facilitates global peace and participation in the democratic process. To demote any of these research areas to a lower priority would be patently foolhardy, considering their proven benefits to so many people. However, this is not to say that research whose benefits are less immediate or clear should be given lower priority. For three reasons, all avenues of scientific research should be afforded equal priority.

First of all, ifwe strictly follow the speaker's suggestion, who would decide which areas of research are more worthwhile than others? Researchers cannot be left to decide. Given a choice, they will pursue their own special areas of interest, and it is highly unlikely that all researchers could reach a fully informed consensus as to what areas are most likely to help the most people. Nor can these decisions be left to regulators and legislators, who would bring to bear their own quirky notions about what is worthwhile, and whose susceptibility to influence-peddlers renders them untrustworthy in any event.

A telling example of the inherent danger of setting "official" research priorities involves the Soviet government's attempts during the 1920s to not only control the direction and the goals of its scientists' research but also to distort the outcome of that research--ostensibly for the greatest good of the greatest number of people. During the 1920s the Soviet government quashed certain areas of scientific inquiry, destroyed entire research facilities and libraries, and caused the sudden disappearance of many scientists who were viewed as threats the state's authority. Not surprisingly, during this time period no significant scientific advances occurred under the auspices of the Soviet government.

Secondly, to compel all researchers to focus only on certain areas would be to force many to waste their true talents. For example, imagine relegating today's preeminent astrophysicist Stephen Hawking to research the effectiveness of behavioral modification techniques in the reform of violent criminals. Admittedly, this example borders on hyperbole. Yet the aggregate effect of realistic cases would be to waste the intellectual talents of our world's researchers. Moreover, lacking genuine interest or motivation a researcher would be unlikely to contribute meaningfully to his or her "assigned" field.

Thirdly, it is difficult to predict which research avenues will ultimately lead to the greatest contributions to society. Research areas whose benefits are certain often break little new ground, and in the long term so-called "cutting-edge" research whose potential benefits are unknown often prove most useful to society. One current example involves terraforrning---creating biological life and a habitable atmosphere where none existed before. This unusual research area does not immediately address society's pressing social problems. Yet in the longer term it might be necessary to colonize other planets in order to ensure the survival of the human race; and after all, what could be a more significant contribution to society than preventing its extinction?

In sum, when it comes to setting priorities for research, at least in the sciences, the speaker goes too far by implying that research whose benefits are unknown are not worth pursuing. After all, any research worth doing delves into the unknown. In the final analysis, the only objective of research should be to discover truths, whatever they might be-- not to implement social policy.

Should academic scholars and researchers be free to pursue whatever avenues of inquiry and research that interest them, no matter how unusual or idiosyncratic, as the speaker asserts? Or should they strive instead to focus on those areas that are most likely to benefit society? l strongly agree with the speaker, for three reasons.

First of all, who is to decide which areas of academic inquiry are worthwhile? Scholars cannot be left to decide. Given a choice they will pursue their own idiosyncratic areas of interest, and it is highly unlikely that all scholars could reach a fully informed consensus as to what research areas would be most worthwhile. Nor can these decisions be left to regulators and legislators, who would bring to bear their own quirky notions about what would be worthwhile, and whose susceptibility to influence renders them untrustworthy in any event.

Secondly, by human nature we are motivated to pursue those activities in which we excel. To compel scholars to focus only on certain areas would be to force many to waste their true talents. For example, imagine relegating today's preeminent astrophysicist Stephen Hawking to research the effectiveness of affirmative-action legislation in reducing workplace discrimination. Admittedly, this example borders on hyperbole. Yet the aggregate effect of realistic cases would be to waste the intellectual talents of our world's scholars and researchers. Moreover, lacking genuine interest or motivation, a scholar would be unlikely to contribute meaningfully to his or her "assigned" field of study.

Thirdly, it is "idiosyncratic" and "unusual" avenues of inquiry that lead to the greatest contributions to society. Avenues of intellectual and scientific inquiry that break no new ground amount to wasted time, talent, and other resources. History is laden with unusual claims by scholars and researchers that turned out stunningly significant--that the sun lies at the center of our universe, that time and space are relative concepts, that matter consists of discrete particles, that humans evolved from other life forms, to name a few. One current area of unusual research is terraforming---creating biological life and a habitable atmosphere where none existed before. This unusual research area does not immediately address society's pressing social problems. Yet in the longer term it might be necessary to colonize other planets in order to ensure the survival of the human race; and after all, what could be a more significant contribution to society than preventing its extinction?

Those who would oppose the speaker's assertion might point out that public universities should not allow their faculty to indulge their personal intellectual fantasies at taxpayer expense. Yet as long as our universities maintain strict procedures for peer review, pure quackery cannot persist for very long. Other detractors might argue that in certain academic areas, particularly the arts and humanities, research and intellectually inquiry amount to little more than a personal quest for happiness or pleasure. This specious argument overlooks the societal benefits afforded by appreciating and cultivating the arts. And, earnest study in the humanities affords us wisdom to know what is best for society, and helps us understand and approach societal problems more critically, creatively, and effectively. Thus despite the lack of a tangible nexus between certain areas of intellectual inquiry and societal benefit, the nexus is there nonetheless.

In sum, I agree that we should allow academic scholars nearly unfettered freedom of intellectual inquiry and research within reasonable limits as determined by peer review. Engaging one's individual talents in one's particular area of fascination is most likely to yield advances, discoveries, and innovations that serve to make the world a better and more interesting place in which to live.

---

Orignal From: Scientists and other researchers should focus their research on areas that are likely to benefit the greatest number of people