题目：
Money spent on research is almost always a good investment, even when the results of that research are controversial.
正文：
I fundamentally aGREe that research is an area deserving long-term investment and this point should not be suspected by whether the results of that research are controversial. But by arguing that money spent on research is almost always a good investment, it seems to go to extreme: it ignores some critical factors that may cause the investment to become an inefficient and even completely failed one.
Research, especially research about fundamental theory, discriminates itself from other activities primarily by the uncertainty and controversy of its results. No one can boast that his/her research is certain to succeed. Also on one should expect that his research results would not be suspected or even violently defied by his/her fellows. However, this character of research does not inhibit its GREat utility to the whole society. Instead, to a GREat extent, it is just because this kind of suspecting and disputing each other that technology, science and society stride forward. Not only the society as a whole but also a competitive firm, primarily thrives on the breakthrough in these meaningful controversies. Undoubtedly, whether the results of research are controversial does not affect its becoming the most profitable and provident area deserving long-term investment at all.
But one must consciously aware that a deserved and provident investment does not necessarily mean a good one permanently. Any investment, as long as it concerns with uncertainty, must be accompanied with a certain amount of chance to fail. And our resources are far less enough to such an extent that we can investment without a deliberate calculation about the revenue and the cost. For the society as a whole, it may have enough capacity to stand up to the failure, but for individual people or individual organizations, any large-scale investment, once fails, would immediately endanger their survival, or at least impose a heavy burden on their future development.
Therefore, without giving consideration to the state of resources, and without any idea of the ratio of the revenue to the cost, the investment is bound to be blindfold and ill allocated such that it seems to be well utilized elsewhere, though profitable or provident as it may be in itself.
Money spent on research has a significant difference from that invested in stock, bond or factory, in that it has a stronger inclination to decreasing marginal revenue. That is to say, if you add a extra investment in stock or bond, you may expect a corresponding increase in revenue; however, no matter how much you invest additionally in research if only its normal expense can be ensured, the probability of success will not rise, the process will not step up, and the results will not be more meaningful. Science and technology has its own laws, which are beyond the influence of money. It was not because the amount of money spent on research that Einstein developed the theory of relativism. Therefore, in many cases we cannot simply argue that money spent on research is always a good investment because it has underlying meaning that the more investment, the better our society. In fact, too much investment certainly affects research little: neither does it bring us more scientists like Einstein, nor does it help current scientists research more efficiently in the condition of ensuring their normal expense.
In conclusion, any research has a risk more or less, and there is no unconditionally or absolutely good investment in the world. The society as a whole should carefully allocate its limited resources for various areas.
相关推荐: