I agree with the speakers broad assertion that money spent on research is generally money well invested. However, the speaker unnecessarily extends this broad assertion to embrace research whose results are controversial, while ignoring certain compelling reasons why some types of research might be unjustifiable. My points of contention with the speaker are the fundamental objectives and nature of research, as discussed below. I concede that the speaker is on the correct philosophical side of this issue. After all, research is of the unknown for true answers to our questions, and for lasting solutions to our enduring problems. Research is also the chief means by which we humans to satisfy our insatiable appetite for knowledge, and our craving to understand ourselves and the world around us. Yet, in the very notion of research also lies my first point of contention with the speaker, who illogically presumes that we can know the results of research before we invest in it. To the contrary, if research is to be of any value it must explore uncharted and In fact, query whether research whose benefits are and predictable can break any new ground, or whether it can be considered research at all. While we must invest in research of whether the might be controversial, at the same time we should be circumspect about research whose objectives are too and whose potential benefits are too speculative. After all, expensive research always carries significant opportunity costs--in terms of how the money might be spent toward addressing societys more immediate problems that do not require research. One apt illustration of this point involves the so-called Star Wars defense initiative, championed by the Reagan administration during the 1980s, this initiative was ill-conceived and largely a waste of taxpayer dollars; and few would dispute that the exorbitant amount of money devoted to the initiative could have gone a long way toward addressing pressing social problems of the day--by establishing after-school programs for by AIDS awareness and education, and so forth. As it turns out, at the end of the Star Wars debacle we were left with gang violence, an AIDS epidemic, and an unprecedented federal budget deficit. The speakers assertion is troubling in two other respects as well. First, no amount of research can completely solve the enduring problems of war, poverty, and violence, for the reason that they certain aspects of human nature--such as aggression and greed. Although human genome research might eventually enable us to engineer away those undesirable aspects of our nature, in the meantime it is up to our economists, diplomats, social reformers, and jurists--not our research laboratories--to these problems. Secondly, for every new research breakthrough that helps reduces human suffering is another that serves primarily to add to that suffering. For example, while some might argue that physics researchers who harnessed the power of the atom have provided us with an source of energy and invaluable peace-keepers, this argument flies in the face of the hundreds of thousands of innocent people murdered and maimed by atomic blasts, and by nuclear meltdowns. And, in fulfilling the promise of better living through chemistry research has given us chemical weapons for human slaughter. In short, so-called advances that scientific research has brought about often net for humanity. In sum, the speakers assertion that we should invest in research whose results are controversial begs the question, because we cannot know whether research will turn out controversial until weve invested in it. As for the speakers broader assertion, I agree that money spent on research is generally a sound investment because it is an investment in the advancement of human knowledge and in human imagination and spirit. Nevertheless, when we do research purely for its own sake without aim or clear purpose--we risk resources which could have been applied to relieve the immediate of our dispirited and disenfranchised members of society. In the final analysis, given finiteeconomic resources we are forced to strike a balance in how we those resources among societal objectives.
我同意该发言者的广泛主张，即钱花在研究上的钱一般都是投资的。然而，说话人不必要的延伸这一广泛的说法抱着研究的结果是有争议的，而忽略了某些令人信服的理由，为什么一些研究类型可能是不合理的。我的论点与演讲者的基本目标和性质的研究，如下面所讨论。我承认，演讲者是正确的哲学方面的问题。毕竟，研究是未知的，对我们的问题的真正答案，并为我们的持久问题的持久解决方案。研究的主要手段，也是我们人类来满足我们对知识永不满足的食欲，我们渴望了解我们自己和我们周围的世界。然而，在研究观念也在于我的第一个论点与扬声器，谁不认为我们可以在投资前我们知道研究的结果。以相反，如果研究是对被任何有价值的它必须探索未知的，事实上，查询是否研究的好处和预测可以打破新的地面，或它是否可以被认为是研究。而我们必须投资是否可能有争议的研究，同时我们应慎重研究目标是否和其潜在好处太投机。毕竟，昂贵的研究总是带来巨大的机会成本，即如何把钱花在解决社会更直接的问题上，而不需要研究。一个容易说明这一点涉及到所谓的星球大战主动防御，倡导的里根政府在20世纪80年代，这一举措是拙劣的，很大程度上是一种浪费纳税人的钱；，很少有人会争议，钱致力于主动量过高会有走了漫长的道路，朝着解决紧迫的社会问题的一天通过建立课后计划的艾滋病宣传教育，等等。事实证明，在星球大战的惨败，最后我们留下的帮派暴力，艾滋病的流行，以及前所未有的联邦预算赤字。演讲者的主张在其他方面都是令人不安的。首先，没有研究能彻底解决战争、贫穷和暴力的持久问题，因为他们某些方面的人性，如侵略和贪婪。虽然人类基因组研究可能最终使我们工程师远离那些不良的方面，我们的本性，同时它是我们的经济学家，外交官，社会改革者，和法学家不是我们研究实验室这些问题。其次，每一个新的研究突破，有助于减少人类的痛苦是另一个主要是为了增加痛苦。为例，虽然有些人可能会认为，物理学的研究人员谁驾驭原子的力量为我们提供能源和宝贵的和平守护者的一个源泉，这一论点苍蝇面对数百成千上万无辜的人被杀害，致残的原子弹爆炸，核熔毁。而且，在履行更好的生活，通过化学的承诺，研究已经给了我们人类的化学武器。简而言之，所谓的进步，科学研究带来的往往是人类的网络。总之，演讲者的主张，我们应该投资于研究，其结果是有争议的引出的问题，因为我们不知道是否研究会变成争议，直到我们已经投资了。至于演讲者的更广泛的主张，我同意，花在研究上的钱通常是一种稳健的投资，因为它是一种对人类知识的进步和人类的想象和精神的投资。然而，当我们做研究的时候纯粹是因为它没有目标或目的明确自己我们的风险可以被应用于缓解我们的沮丧和被剥夺权利的社会成员的直接资源。在最后的分析中，给出finiteeconomic资源，我们不得不找到一个平衡点在我们这些资源在社会目标。