[cheekygeek]

Question
The development of MRI imaging technology is one useful spinoff of basic research into the structure of the atom. Research, however, is expensive. Many people argue that the high cost of research outweighs its potential benefits. Provide one argument for, and one argument against increasing current funding for atomic structure research.

Answer
For: Research in the area of atomic-structure has already led to numerous advances that have provided great public benefit. For example the MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) is a spin-off from particle physics research that gives doctors a powerful diagnostics tool for noninvasive imaging of the body. However the best is yet to come with atomic-structure research. Atomic-structure research could essentially provide the miracle cures that scientists are looking for if they can learn to break down and reassemble atoms based on structure. They could also learn to turn elements into a totally different one for example lead into gold.

Against: Even though our society has clearly benefited from this research, fundamental research is expensive, and sometimes it seems that not all people have equal access to the benefits resulting from this research. For example, a recent study found that well-off Ontarians were 38% more likely to have MRIs done than their poorer counterparts.

(I got the statistics from my science book and couldn't find any info behind it that is why I didn't use it as a quote. Is that okay?)

How did I do? This is worth 10 marks. Would you give me full marks for this answer? Could I make it better? Do you have any tips for me?

Thank you in advance!

 

[magician4]

Atomic-structure research could essentially provide the miracle cures that scientists are looking for if they can learn to break down and reassemble atoms based on structure.

I can't see how learning about how to break down and / or reassamble atoms might be of any use in medicine eo ipso: medicine still is in it's infancy with respect to really understanding the very mechanisms that regulate life, let alone modifying things if something went wrong or might need improvement. Playing around with single atoms doesn't help here.
  I don't see how this could possibly be a meaningfull "pro"

They could also learn to turn elements into a totally different one for example lead into gold.

well, you won't take lead for this, but mercury (or platinum) instead, but: this already can be done
it's called "nuclear transmutation"

Even though our society has clearly benefited from this research, fundamental research is expensive, and sometimes it seems that not all people have equal access to the benefits resulting from this research.

this is a fact, and has always been: never have goods been distributed evenly , in no society system whatsoever in history. However, if the general or even average level is high, even the poorest amongst us will lead a decent life
... compared to approx. 15-20% of world population that is starving these days, with many of them dying ( like one person worldwide each and every 3 seconds.. think about that!), mostly because their societies as a whole are underdeveloped, poor and without any technical resources whatsoever. *⁾
hence, this is not really a "contra", but a "pro" nevertheless, as even with asymmetric distribution there are additional benefits for the underdogs whenever spin-offs from fundamental research turned into some kind of technical advance, growth, improvement in general..

Do you have any tips for me?

If I was in your shoes, I would turn to a completely different example to discuss this issue.
I would discuss "energy" , as this seems to me to be one of the most fundamental and relevant challenges for the near future, and of global importance.
Civil energy from nuclear fusion (this is the part where applied atomic structure research comes into the picture: Tokamak and thatlike) would be my proposal here - as this seems to me to be the only way to really avoid a disaster we're heading at, full speed.
the "pros" in this case seem pretty obvious to me, soon as you begin to look into the oil/gas/resources situation at hand and to yet come (--> "peak oil") a little deeper.

the "cons" however are a bit speculative, with a lot of them being more of political nature: look for example at what learning to split atoms did to the world, and how the plain fact of the existence of nuclear weapons shaped (and still shapes) everybody's life, both directly and indirectly
... and imagine what the world would be like, probably separated into those who know (and own the respective patents and all that) how to gain civil energy from fusion, and those who do not, with all the usual fallout from those asymmetries.
Asides from this, yes, research will need money - esp. if you went from applied to fundamental research, and this money would need to come from somewhere, preferably from a weighted distribution: if you had to close down kindergardens and schools to finance scientific research, this obviously was not a well-weighted situation.
hence, funding has it's limits

However, from where I stand my impression is that esp. this very research needs more funding, deserves more funding and is worthy of more funding. Furthermore, society not only can bear it (as the "weighted distribution" to me seems to be a little bit off , to the disadvantage of science), but is in deep need for it instead.

... else we'd someday might have to explain to our grandchildren, why the heck we're sitting here with candlelight and a charcoral fire instead of electric light and a decent heater (and why, for that matter, we're again riding horses instead of driving a car, and where the f*** all those airplanes have gone)
And to be clear about this: "someday" might not be that far away anymore. "Peak Oil" has already happened , in most of the developed countries around the world, the US included (that's what all those ressources related wars are all about, by the way)

time is running out...


regards

Ingo


*⁾
to discuss the causes for this situation, and in especially to investigate the function those developed countries ( i.e. those that do already have MRI's) execute here, is an important political issue...
... but somewhat off-topic with respect to your homework, I'm afraid

[Corribus]

Your "for" is vague and doesn't really provide any specific examples of how atomic-scale research will benefit humans. "Miracle cures" isn't really any kind of answer, and in any case it's not clear how atomic research will provide 'miracle cures' anyway.  Most applications of physics in medicine are diagnostic in nature, not therapeutic.

Your "against" answer I just plain disagree with.  Research is always expensive but you haven't really justified why the expense outweighs potential benefits. Moreso the point about unequal distribution. So what?  I counter by asking: isn't it better that some people reap the benefits of technology than nobody?  Besides, the rich people are the ones footing the bill for the research, so doesn't it make sense that they benefit most from it?* This also ignores the value of knowledge in and of itself - that is, beyond the practical value of its applications.

*I'm not saying I hold this viewpoint. But you are essentially making a position argument here, and so you need to foresee and prepare for counterarguments. If your argument doesn't anticipate and address potential counterpoints like this, you have essentially failed the task.