Worthwhile Uses for Science?

I probably don't have any business or justification for making such judgments (but hey, has that stopped the Rush Limbaughs of the world?), but I sometimes wonder whether some of the uses to which we put our science and research talent are truly worthwhile, in the grand scheme of things. That is, whether these efforts might be put to better use. A couple of examples:

To make household products work better: Well, I guess that making products work better to get the stains out of our clothes is a good thing. Probably preparations and machines that get our houses clean with less work are a good thing, too.

To remove calories from our food (and even our pets' food): I can't say this is a waste when Americans' overweight and obesity problem is serious and leads to diseases like diabetes; but it seems kind of a shame when you consider that there are millions of people in the world who are starving and desperately crave the calories we are trying hard to discard.

Cosmetic science, etc.: For example, new and better products to remove wrinkles from women's faces. Well, women would hate me if I said this is unnecessary or a waste of talent, but I think it is at best a borderline case. And that could lead to a whole other subject--why our society considers it more important for women to devote a lot of effort to looking good. Is that sexism? But men have been catching up in that regard, and there are far more men's grooming products on store shelves than there were a few years ago.

I just noticed that the dental floss I bought the other day says "Improved Flavor." Definitely important, a real contribution to improved quality of life.

Making our electronic toys continually better: Well, for me it's hard to believe that our smart phones need to get smarter every day, nor (as a non-video gamer) that we constantly need new and better games.

Update, October 5, 2011:
Here is a quote from an online article dealing with a proposed trade deal that would preserve the intellectual rights of "Big Pharma" (the big drug companies) but might have the bad effect of making drugs for AIDS more expensive and less available to poor people in the countries involved, such as Vietnam:

Much of the research pharmaceutical companies do conduct is simply not relevant to public health concerns, with money pouring into projects for hair loss, for instance, while funding for diseases that primarily afflict the poor, like tuberculosis, stays in perpetual short supply.

"The drug companies would say it generates research, but the evidence is very questionable, because much of the research is not directed at important diseases," says Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz (HuffPost Politics, Oct. 5, 2011).

Copyright © 2011 by Richard Stein