Gre Analytical Writing

Claim:Researchers should not limit their investigations to only those areas in which they expect to discover something that has an immediate,practical application. Reason:It is impossible to predict the outcome of a line of research with any certainty.

It is a very well known fact that the most pivotal discoveries of Science have been an act of serendipity.There is probably no definite way of knowing the outcome of any particular body of research, despite knowing the odds against or in favor of any event.Researchers,given all their cerebrality and the potential to tranform the face of mankind,should therefore,not limit themselves to working towards projects that appear to have imminent practical applications and dedicate themselves to making innovative discoveries,as odd or eccentric they might seem. The randomness governing the denoument of a research study could be equated with that involving the outcome on flipping a coin.It could result in a tails or heads with equal probability.That is,to be or not to be,is in the hands of the forces of the universe figuratively.Some of the most pioneering works of Science appeared to have no potential benefit to mankind in their inchoate stages.For instance,Alexander Fleming,credited with the discovery of Penicillin,serendipitiously happened to notice a fungal growth inhibiting the growth of bacterial colonies in dirty petri dishes that he had forgotten to clean.Little did he know at that point of time,that his little observation,apparently of dubious value then,would go on to change the face of Medicine after years of research.It is this kind of vision that scientists must posses in order to truly benefit mankind,rather than merely working for lucre or personal gain or even the fame that comes with getting their works patented.
Had Sir Issac Newton not been inquisitive about the forces of nature drawing an apple towards the earth,we would not have known the