Money for postgraduate research is limited. Some people, therefore, think that financial support from government should be only provided for scientific research rather than research for less useful subjects. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion?
With limited public funding, many countries tend to give priorities to research for "hard sciences" rather than "soft sciences." This does not necessarily mean that the former is the only experimental development that counts, nor that the latter refers to apparently less useful subjects. While research on the both can benefit society as a whole in different ways, it is possible that research on such "hard" subjects as biology, chemistry and physics requires a larger share of financial support from governments.
In search for knowledge, a postgraduate research project in any academic disciplines costs money to make a difference, so public funding should not be provided exclusively for whatever research. The definition of research, in the broadest sense of the word, includes any gathering of data and facts for the advancement of non-scientific as well as strictly scientific knowledge. It is because the research results in the "soft" fields known as social studies are concerned with society and human behavior. That is to say, social science is the study of society and the manner in which people behave influences the world around us. Indeed, unlike scientists dedicated to "hard" subjects, researchers in social studies actually influence our lives without our being aware they are doing so. Hence, it is not exactly fair to think that research on social studies should not need public funding simply for being considered as less useful subjects.
Research on social studies attempts to provide useful information for us. For example, it redefines the role of government in an increasingly market-based society and helps to make national health service function. This kind of research can enhance the understanding of human behavior and the reasons that govern such behavior. Even though not in similar ways, people in general benefit from social studies as much as from scientific research, whether you are a parent, a teacher, a local councilor, a police officer or a business executive. At this point, we may ask ourselves this question: should governments entirely ignore the importance of research on less useful subjects and therefore refuse to give financial support? The answer: it is advisable not to underestimate the practical value from postgraduate research on subjects like economics, psychology, criminology, education, and international relations, to name only a few.
It becomes clear that governments should not only provide funding for scientific research but also support experimental development for "non-scientific" research. Both kinds of research are essential to society in progress. Accordingly, it is always good to remember that research for physics, chemistry and biology carries more weight and usually deserves more public money; neverhtless, it is also important not to forget research for less useful subjects.