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? ['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.', 'The committal of public funds for new scientific research will ensure that the public welfare will be enhanced.', '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.', 'In order to ensure that scientific research is directed toward contributing to the public welfare, legislators must commit public funds to new scientific research.']