IELTS writing: The most important aim of science should be to improve people’s lives.

The most important aim of science should be to improve people’s lives.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Mohammad's writing:

It is said that the improvement of people's lives should be the number one priority of science. I completely agree with this idea as it can provide scientists with a clearer road map and help the public understand the importance of science.

To begin with, improving the lives of people as the principal goal can give scientists more precise guidance. Obstacles to improving people's living can represent scientists existing problems and the demands of the public. Health-related issues such as some chronic diseases, for example, can help scientists spot the problems and look for ways to address them. They can have more transparent areas to do their research as they know more details about their case studies and the outcomes they should achieve. Without this key objective, scientists might struggle to find where to start their studies.

Prioritizing the lives of people as the main goal of science can also help the public appreciate the role of science better. Discoveries which can extend people's life expectancy, and medicines to treat non-curable diseases can help people grasp the importance of science. These tangible outcomes can gain the trust of a larger number of people to rely on science to find the most practical solutions to their problems. This can bring more respect and popularity for scientists and justify the public to allocate more time and money to new scientific research. As a result of this widespread support, scientists can have a greater degree of flexibility to conduct further studies and examinations.

In the final analysis, choosing the improvement of the way people live as the major priority in the world of science seems to be reasonable. It can bring clear targets for scientists and encourage the public to support and respect science more.

Mehdi's writing:
It is argued that the most significant goal of science should be the betterment in everyone’s lives. I completely disagree with this view point and believe that science should be revered and valued for its own sake, regardless of whether or not it benefits the public. (46)
 
Historically speaking, the most basic form of science, such as mathematics or astronomy, dates back thousands of years and has always been an inseparable part of human nature, providing us with a means to explain our surroundings and natural phenomena. It is the only reliable tool we have always had, otherwise we would still be in dark ages. What makes science different from religion is testability: should we dispose of all scientific discoveries now, we still have the potential to arrive to the same point again sometime in the future, but the same is not true for religion. Pure science has intrinsic value and scientists must push the frontiers of science in every and all directions. When this is done properly and for an extended period of time, then specialists of other disciplines such as engineers and medical doctors can find ways to improve people’s lives. (146)
 
The reason why science should not be used principally for the wellbeing of people is that we have no idea which branch of science will ultimately become useful for us, so as to develop it further; in other words, should we ignore some scientific disciplines, assuming they are of no use for us, we practically limit our progress and science, by definition, cannot be restricted. These seemingly irrelevant branches of science may be fundamental to an essential scientific discovery in the future. NASA, for example, first worked on wireless technology for headphones, so astronauts can use them without getting tangled up with wires while in space. Theoretical research in quantum and particle physics has led to new energy resources such as nuclear and solar energy. And pure biology and research into DNA structure paved the way to genetic engineering and biotechnology. (141)
 
 
To sum up, I completely disagree with the idea that the most essential purpose of science should be making people’s lives better. I believe that science has to develop naturally and limitlessly, and its use in our everyday life will eventually appear. (42)