Some people argue that scientific research should be driven mainly by the pursuit of knowledge, regardless of its practical applications, while others believe it should focus primarily on solving concrete problems facing society. Discuss both views and give your own opinion.

Few debates within the scientific community are as enduring as the question of what should motivate research. One camp contends that inquiry ought to be guided purely by curiosity and the pursuit of knowledge, irrespective of any immediate use, while another insists that science must first and foremost address the tangible problems confronting humanity. Both positions merit careful consideration. The case for curiosity-driven research rests on a persuasive historical pattern: the most transformative discoveries have frequently emerged from investigations with no obvious purpose. When physicists first probed the structure of the atom, they were not seeking to generate electricity or diagnose disease, yet their abstract theorising ultimately made both possible. Constraining scientists to predefined objectives, advocates argue, risks foreclosing precisely the serendipitous breakthroughs that reshape civilisations. Knowledge pursued for its own sake keeps the frontier of understanding open in ways that narrowly applied work rarely does. Proponents of problem-focused research, however, advance an equally weighty argument grounded in urgency and accountability. With finite funding and pressing crises such as climate change, pandemics and food insecurity, they maintain that society cannot afford to indulge open-ended speculation while people suffer. Public money, in this view, carries an obligation to deliver demonstrable benefits, and directing talent towards concrete challenges is simply the responsible course. In my judgement, this apparent dichotomy is somewhat false, for the two approaches are profoundly interdependent. Applied science depends on the reservoir of understanding that basic research accumulates, while practical problems often pose the very questions that inspire fundamental inquiry. A wise society therefore funds both, resisting the temptation to sacrifice long-term discovery for short-term gain. Ultimately, I believe the healthiest scientific culture is one that protects curiosity while remaining alert to human need, recognising that today's abstraction may become tomorrow's indispensable solution.