Some legislators refuse to commit public funds for new scientific research if they cannot be assured that the research will contribute to the public welfare. Such a position ignores the lessons of experience. Many important contributions to the public welfare that resulted from scientific research were never predicted as potential outcomes of that research. Suppose that a scientist in the early twentieth century had applied for public funds to study molds: who would have predicted that such research would lead to the discovery of antibiotics -- one of the greatest contributions ever made to the public welfare? Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main point of the argument?
A: Lack of guarantees that new scientific research will contribute to the public welfare is not sufficient reason for legislators to refuse to commit public funds to new scientific research.
B: The committal of public funds for new scientific research will ensure that the public welfare will be enhanced.
C: Scientific discoveries that have contributed to the public welfare would have occurred sooner if public funds had been committed to the research that generated those discoveries.
D: In order to ensure that scientific research is directed toward contributing to the public welfare, legislators must commit public funds to new scientific research.
Choose A, B, C or D as your solution.
A