Curiosity in the human mind appears at best as something mildly reprehensible, but more usually as a regrettable aberration from normal behaviour. Popular wisdom is full of warnings against

indulging in such behaviour. “Curiosity killed the cat,” says the English proverb. “Don’t be curious because you grow prematurely old,” say the Hungarians. The Russians are rather drastic.

They have a young lady, Barbara, who is so curious that she puts her nose into every merchandise in the market. She gets her nose cut off. Other nations may not express their condemnation in

quite the same poignant manner but they are not enthusiastic either. “_Sei nicht neugierig_” (“Don’t be curious “) may not have the status of a proverb, but is heard often enough in

environment led to collective punishment, bringing upon humanity — all of us — the stigma of original sin. Were the Greeks more inclined to accord a respectable position to curiosity? Hardly

so. The first woman created by the Greek gods, Pandora, is well known for her curiosity in trying to find out what is inside the box she was given — with strict instructions not to open it.

Well, she did open it and let loose Strife, Revenge, Disease and a few other equally repellent things. And then there is the story of Psyche and Cupid. Cupid seduces Psyche, but he does not

run away. He does the right thing: he marries her. His only condition is that Psyche should never see his face. Everything seems to be fine, but trouble brews when her sisters enter the

scene. They persuade her to find out the identity of her husband. Psyche hides a lamp, she lights it in the middle of the night, she recognises her husband but unfortunately, while she does

so, hot oil spilling out from the lamp blinds Cupid. He runs away and afterwards her happiness is over: she suffers all the trials inflicted upon her by Venus, Cupid’s jealous mother.

Another cautionary tale! Had she been less curious, she could have lived in happiness for the rest of her life. Has anyone ever been in favour of curiosity? On the authority of the_ Oxford

Dictionary of Quotations _I can say that the historian G.M. Trevelyan was all for it. “Disinterested intellectual curiosity is the life blood of real civilisation”, he wrote in the Preface

to his _English Social History. _But I do not know how seriously we should take his endorsement.  It is just self-interest. Historians make their living out of curiosity, by trying to find

out what happened in various periods in the past. Some other people have also appreciated curiosity. Take Samuel Johnson. He wrote: “Curiosity is one of the most permanent and certain

characteristics of a vigorous intellect.” Or take Hobbes, who expresses the same sentiment in a more poetic form: “Desire to know why, and how, [is] curiosity…which is a lust of the mind,

that a perseverance of delight in the continued and indefatigable generation of knowledge, exceedeth the short vehemence of any carnal pleasure.” This is not the first time that the

“people”, who are populists by definition, and those with more brain power have different opinions. It looks as though those who were opinion-makers in centuries past held curiosity in high

esteem. And we can say the same thing about the men and women who made great advances in the Natural Sciences. They discovered Electricity. Out of curiosity. They discovered the Analytical

Engines (nowadays called computers). Out of curiosity. They discovered the structure of the atom. Out of curiosity. They discovered the structure of DNA. Out of curiosity. And they

discovered other things too. Out of curiosity. And then came the victory of money, the triumph of commerce. Curiosity has become a dirty word. It conjures up images of fat academics growing

fatter at the expense of the taxpayer. Just to satisfy their curiosity. In any grant application in the Natural Sciences you have to prove nowadays that eventually it will yield a product

that can be sold for ready money. What happened to a friend of mine will serve as a cautionary tale. He submitted  a proposal to the mighty Science and Engineering Research Council. He duly

enumerated in his proposal all the benefits that would in the course of time accrue to the world of commerce, were his proposal to be accepted. After the Committee met he dialled with

trembling fingers the number of a high official, Chairman of the relevant Committee. “Hm”, said the official, “Let me see…the Referee says: ‘Professor O.Y. has a good reputation in

curiosity-driven research.’” My friend heard no more. He cried to the heavens above: “No, Sir. That’s a slanderous statement. I am not curious, I have never been curious, I shall never be

curious in the future. I promise!” It was in vain. The poor man was branded as a curiosity-inspired fellow-traveller. He could just as well retire now. He will never get a grant! I must note

here that some of the research proposals granted in the past awarded considerable sums for research that I would qualify as curiosity-driven, such as fusion or more recently quantum

computers. Were they good choices? Those were difficult decisions. I don’t want to criticise them. All I am saying is that curiosity should not be a dirty word. The money-dispensing

authorities should give those driven by curiosity a fair chance. A MESSAGE FROM THEARTICLE _We are the only publication that’s committed to covering every angle. We have an important

contribution to make, one that’s needed now more than ever, and we need your help to continue publishing throughout these hard economic times. So please, make a donation._