In response to this article

William Broad and James Glanz beg the question of whether science matters in this 2003 New York Times article, yet fail to make a truly valid argument as to why it would not. As they introduce the primary opposing public opinions regarding the validity and importance of scientific research, the observation that American society has become dissatisfied with the rate of scientific innovation is the major argument for science no longer mattering. Since when is delayed progress a reason to give up when tackling extremely difficult and complex issues? In fact, the logical conclusion seems to be that scientific research needs more social and financial support. This point is elaborated further in the final half of the article discussing trends in funding of scientific research by both the federal government and private industries.

The other, slightly more valid, argument against the importance of science is simply the fact that there is a potential for negative or destructive inventions to be produced. While this is a very legitimate fear to be kept in mind, it does not disqualify the validity and importance of science as a field. It does, however, reinforce the argument for more effectively distributed and targeted funding for research. Perhaps these fears are actually a product of society’s misguided priorities and the steady conversion to primarily private research domination over government funded research of fundamental science.

The points discussed in the article are interesting and certainly informative, my only objection with it is the final conclusion made from the evidence provided. Instead of begging the question of whether science still matters, the information urges definite reprioritizing of fundamental science research and proper financial support, especially in light of the numerous and complex issues our civilization faces today.