91Ó°ÊÓ

Some legislators refuse to commit public funds for new scientific research if they cannot be assured that the research will contribute to the public welfare. Such a position ignores the lessons of experience. Many important contributions to the public welfare that resulted from scientific research were never predicted as potential outcomes of that research. Suppose that a scientist in the early twentieth century had applied for public funds to study molds: who would have predicted that such research would lead to the discovery of antibiotics - one of the greatest contributions ever made to the public welfare? Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main point of the argument? (A) The committal of public funds for new scientific research will ensure that the public welfare will be enhanced. (B) If it were possible to predict the general outcome of a new scientific research effort, then legislators would not refuse to commit public funds for that effort. (C) Scientific discoveries that have contributed to the public welfare would have occurred sooner if public funds had been committed to the research that generated those discoveries. (D) In order to ensure that scientific research is directed toward contributing to the public welfare, legislators must commit public funds to new scientific research. (E) Lack of guarantees that new scientific research will contribute to the public welfare is not sufficient reason for legislators to refuse to commit public funds to new scientific research.

Step by step solution

01

Understand the Argument

The argument highlights the importance of funding scientific research without needing guaranteed outcomes. It emphasizes that unpredictable outcomes of research have historically contributed significantly to public welfare, using the discovery of antibiotics as an example.

02

Identify the Core Reasoning

The reasoning suggests that requiring assurance of direct public welfare contributions before funding research is an oversight, as many beneficial outcomes from research could not have been foreseen. This implies that the rejection of funding solely based on lack of guaranteed outcomes is flawed.

03

Evaluate the Answer Choices

Consider each answer choice and assess if it captures the argument's main point: - (A) suggests ensured public welfare from research funding, which isn't implied by the argument. - (B) presupposes predictable outcomes for funding, which isn't the argument's focus. - (C) speculates on faster discoveries with more funding, which doesn’t directly relate to the argument's main concern. - (D) discusses directing funds specifically toward public welfare, which isn't the central argument. - (E) argues against refusal based solely on lack of guarantees, aligning with the argument's stance.

04

Select the Correct Answer

The key conclusion of the argument is that not being able to predict contributions to public welfare is insufficient grounds for refusing to fund scientific research. Answer (E) best reflects this conclusion by stating that lack of guarantees should not prevent the allocation of public funds.

Unlock Step-by-Step Solutions & Ace Your Exams!

• Full Textbook Solutions

  Get detailed explanations and key concepts

• Unlimited Al creation

  Al flashcards, explanations, exams and more...

• Ads-free access

  To over 500 millions flashcards

• Money-back guarantee

  We refund you if you fail your exam.

Over 30 million students worldwide already upgrade their learning with 91Ó°ÊÓ!

Key Concepts

These are the key concepts you need to understand to accurately answer the question.

Scientific Research Funding

Scientific research funding plays an essential role in advancing human knowledge and societal progress. However, not all research guarantees immediate or predictable benefits. Publicly funded research allows scientists to explore a variety of topics, some of which may not have an obvious connection to direct public welfare. But, these explorations often lead to groundbreaking discoveries that can significantly enhance public life.
- Such funding often encourages innovation and creativity by allowing researchers to explore uncharted territories. - Historical precedents, like the discovery of antibiotics, show that sometimes the most valuable outcomes are unforeseen.
Public funding can fill gaps that private funding cannot, as private companies often avoid uncertain or long-term investments. Meanwhile, public initiatives can sustain efforts in crucial, but initially obscure, fields.

Public Welfare

Public welfare benefits immensely from scientific advancements. Discoveries resulting from research often improve quality of life, advance medical care, and increase socio-economic stability. These advancements, while not always immediately visible, contribute to long-term well-being.
- When scientific research leads to the development of new technologies or medicine, public health can see marked improvements. - Scientific studies often inform public policy, driving informed decisions that benefit society at large.
The improvement to public welfare through research illustrates the importance of maintaining steady investment in scientific endeavors, even when the benefits are not immediately clear.

Unpredictable Outcomes

Science is inherently unpredictable. This unpredictability can deter decision-makers from investing in uncertain projects. However, history is replete with examples where unpredictable outcomes have led to astonishing advancements.
Uncertainty should not be a prohibitive factor in funding decisions. Rather, it should be embraced as an essential and exciting aspect of discovery. Many significant scientific contributions were unforeseen at the outset of their research paths.
- Case studies, such as research into molds leading to antibiotics, highlight the potential of unexpected results. - Embracing unpredictability encourages a more dynamic and agile approach to scientific exploration, promising innovation and progress.

Legislative Decision-Making

Legislators play a crucial role in determining which research projects receive funding. Their decisions can significantly impact the direction and progress of scientific inquiry. It is essential for legislative bodies to appreciate the unpredictable nature of scientific research when making funding decisions.
- True innovation often stems from research without guaranteed outcomes, necessitating a forward-thinking approach from legislators. - Legislators must balance economic concerns with the potential social and public benefits of funding scientific research.
By supporting research even without assured results, legislators nurture a fertile ground for discoveries that could yield substantial contributions to public welfare. Implementing policies that appreciate the intrinsic uncertainty of research could lead to significant, positive societal change.