The question
Write about the following topic:
Some people think that governments should only fund scientific research that has clear practical benefits, while others believe that research driven purely by curiosity is equally important.
Discuss both these views and give your own opinion.
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.
Write at least 250 words.
Key ideas for a high-band answer
- View 1: taxpayers expect visible results, and limited budgets should target urgent problems such as disease and climate change.
- View 2: many breakthroughs came from research with no practical aim (e.g. the laser, the basic science behind mRNA vaccines).
- Discoveries cannot be predicted in advance, and applied science depends on a foundation of basic knowledge.
- Own opinion clearly stated, e.g. fund both, with a fixed share for each and decisions made by experts rather than politicians.
Band 9 model answer
318 words · written by Abroadway to show band 9 features (not an official IELTS sample)
Governments spend large sums on science, and there is ongoing debate about how this funding should be allocated. Some people argue that only projects with obvious practical value deserve public support, while others insist that research motivated by curiosity matters just as much. I believe that both types of research are necessary, but that curiosity-driven science is often undervalued.
The argument for focusing on applied research is easy to understand. Public money comes from taxpayers, who reasonably expect to see results such as new medicines, cleaner energy or more productive crops. When resources are limited, it seems sensible to prioritise projects that address urgent problems like climate change or infectious disease rather than, for instance, studying distant galaxies.
However, history shows that many of the most important breakthroughs came from research with no practical goal. When the first laser was built in 1960, it was jokingly described as a solution looking for a problem, yet lasers are now used in everything from eye surgery to internet cables. Similarly, the mRNA vaccines developed during the COVID-19 pandemic relied on decades of basic research into how cells use genetic instructions, much of which struggled to attract funding at the time. Such discoveries are impossible to predict, and their practical applications often appear only years later.
In my opinion, a government that funds only applied work is likely to run out of new ideas in the long term, because applied science depends on a foundation of basic knowledge. At the same time, it is reasonable for some money to target pressing national problems. A balanced approach would give a fixed share of the budget to each type of research and let experts, rather than politicians, decide which projects are most promising.
In conclusion, although research with clear benefits deserves support, I believe that curiosity-driven science is equally important, since it often produces the discoveries on which future practical advances are built.
Useful vocabulary for this topic
- research
- funding
- practical applications
- curiosity
- breakthroughs
- discoveries
- taxpayers
- long term
Learn how to plan and write this essay type in the free lesson Discussion essays (both views).
Write your own answer and get a band estimate
Free, no account needed. Aim for 40 minutes and at least 250 words.