Should the government stop funding scientific research that does not have clear results? In the short term, there is some justification for not funding scientific research when the consequences are unclear. But in my view, doing so would be destructive to the scientific enterprise in the long run. Admittedly, one of the functions of scientific research is to solve social problems and make the world a better place. Therefore, given that society has limited total resources, it is more important for the government to fund scientific research that produces clear results and can immediately solve societal problems. For example, global warming is an urgent problem, so the government should devote more resources to scientific research related to solving carbon emissions and the greenhouse effect, such as developing more efficient batteries and controlled nuclear fusion. In addition, my opponents may argue that while scientific research, with or without definitive results, cannot be done without significant funding, funding can come from various sources, such as corporations. For example, Google has a division called Google X. This division is not responsible for making revenues and is entirely sponsored by Google. This division brings together a group of the best scientists who do not invent for any explicit purpose, and some of their inventions are eventually turned into valuable products to generate revenue for Google. But the resources that the government can mobilize to fund science are unmatched by businesses and individuals. The more uncertain the research results are, the more funding they need. Take, for example, the space station and the atomic collider. These projects are of great significance, and only the government has the ability to mobilize resources to keep them running. Moreover, if the government does not sponsor any research with uncertain prospects, this can have serious detrimental effects on the long-term development of science. First, many scientific studies have uncertain results, but that does not mean that they are meaningless. For instance, the Chinese and U.S. governments invest billions of dollars each year in space exploration. The depths of space are so unknown to humans that it is challenging to explore space to achieve a particular outcome. However, this does not obscure the value of space research. By supporting space exploration, the government will create a scientific fervor among the population, which will raise the cultural level of society. The success of national space exploration is itself a reflection of national power. Second, many valuable scientific research results cannot be separated from the research of basic science. And the research of these basic sciences itself does not have clearly targeted results, because the final outcome depends on the laws of nature. For instance, the application of nuclear energy is based entirely on the study of elementary particles in fundamental physics. This research itself cannot formulate clear results, because the final outcome depends on the laws of nature. In summary, although society has limited resources and the government is not the only party that can fund scientific research, scientific research that does not have clear results is of great importance and cannot be accomplished without government funding for the long-term development of science.