Issue 119 处子作，谢谢指教！：）

windy-iUID: 196853

The statement asserts that the first consideration of research priorities is how many people can benefit from the result. I partly agree with this statements. But strictly speaking, in our real life, this is in fact not the practical consideration when people set priority for research areas. Further more, this standard is not as practical as it may sound. People tend to focus more on the immediate benefits rather than the number of the beneficiaries.

The most common example which stands for this statement is in biology. As new medical technology and also, biotechnology help prevent and cure diseases, which enhances greatly people's living standard, attention is most given to this part, and lots of capital is put into such field. Not only do we have all kinds of research teams nationwide, or say, worldwide, compete to make new discovery or progress in such field, also in our daily life, the media always report such news as soon as possible.  On the contrary, less attetion is paid to fields such as agronomy, botany and so on. The underlying reason is quite simple. Most of the people in the advanced countries don't need to worry about the sufficiency of their food while much more of them suffer from the diseases, which, sarcastically, are stemmed from the excessive supply of food. As result, the research on agronomy and botany benefit far fewer people than medical technology. So the latter has higher priority than the former.

However, in a broader view of all the research fields, we find that clearly, some fields which definitely benefit even more people receive very low priority, attention and capital, such as eduction, physics. In the number of the beneficiaries, eduction is more beneficial than medical technology. Because while the latter save individuals from suffering, the former is basic and foundamental for a generation, who will become the mainstream of our society and hold the future of it. Also, physical researches on new, clean and safe energy will solve one of the most important problem in the modern world if they succeed. Last year, the northeast part of the States experienced 3-day cut-off of electricity, which brings to millions of loss. Also the increase in crude oil on the international market arouse worldwide panics and worries.If we find ways to use nuclear or solar energy more safely and cheaply, or discover more efficient energy sources as alternatives of which we use right now, such problem no long exist. All these can prove that such researches can benefit much more people than medical technology and so on, but they in fact don't enjoy a much higher priority than the latter, which is contrary to the statement.

Futher analysis on this issue shows that people are to some degree, short-sighted. Education and physics do benefit people in a wider scope, but they can't in a quite short run, at least, not as immediately as medical technology does. Because the resouces and all the things needed to put into researches are limited, people tend to give up those which will benefit us in a longer run,  and focus more on the quickly-beneficial ones.

So, although in a smaller scope, the statement proves right,  the number of benefiaries is not the real standard of setting priorities for different researches.

windy-iUID: 196853

自己顶一个！欢迎交流！开拓思路！

鬼谷子UID: 159645

请注意发贴格式

sailing_yfUID: 150982

Issue119
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?

windy-iUID: 196853

自己顶一下：）已经帮sailing_yf看过了：）
回鬼谷子：不好意思，一定注意