Public agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF), whichanthropologists and scholars from many other disciplines depend on to fund their research, have recently taking the practical benefits of proposed projects into account when doling out grant money.In fact, NSF grant proposals now require researchers to include a separate section that explicitly outlines the project’s broader impacts not only within their scientific discipline but also for society more broadly.This has not always been the case.Until recently, there has been a widespread willingness to fund scientific research just for the case of acquiring knew knowledge, regardless if that knowledge had a clear practical application or not.This funding philosophy was based on the notion that knowledge itself is valuable and may contribute to a contribute to a significant breakthrough in the future, even if its practical value is not initially apparent.Much of this shift in philosophy can be attributed to the concerns of elected officials, most with little or no scientific background, who worry that taxpayer dollars are being wasted on frivolous projects that provide no practical benefits. These concerns have been formalized in the new annual tradition by Senator Tom Coburn called Wastebook, in which he lists the government-funded projects from the past year that he views as the most absurd and wasteful.Many of the projects on these lists are NSF-funded projects from the social sciences.For this discussion, provide your opinion on this issue.Should projects using public (i.e., taxpayer) money be required to demonstrate an immediate practical benefit or, alternatively, is it constructive to support scientific research just for the sake of expanding the scope of human knowledge, with the understanding that the all knowledge has the potential to contribute to important breakthroughs at some point in the future?Social Science Anthropology ANT 2000

Order your essay today and save 20% with the discount code ESSAYHELP