I suppose it depends on your worldview. If science is a progressive endeavor, then there must be an end point where all of the Truth has been obtained from the world. However, if you are a Kuhnian, science will go on forever never making progress, because when scientists realize that a present model is false, they exchange it for a new paradigm, except that the new paradigm is incommensurable with the old one. In  Kuhn's example the terms "time" and "space" mean radically different things to the Newtonian and the Einsteinian: Einstein's model isn't a modification of Netwon's, it's the destruction and replacement of it. Of course those are two extreme wolrdviews, so maybe the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Personally I think that when a present paradigm cannot bear any more anomalies, it must be replaced. And that's not really starting over, it's more a whittling away toward a truer model. 

As a biologist though, I don't think we are at a point yet where we even need to worry about such matters. I think most biological fields haven't gotten past the basic task of discerning the basic behavior of all the important components in their system. We are still discovering the basic mechanisms used by cells, not to mention the basic mechanisms used by closely related cells to interact with less closely related cells (or ecology as you might say). So maybe ask again in a couple centuries.

Death of curiosity!

I suppose it depends on your worldview. If science is a progressive endeavor, then there must be an end point where all of the Truth has been obtained from the world. However, if you are a Kuhnian, science will go on forever never making progress, because when scientists realize that a present model is false, they exchange it for a new paradigm, except that the new paradigm is incommensurable with the old one. In  Kuhn's example the terms "time" and "space" mean radically different things to the Newtonian and the Einsteinian: Einstein's model isn't a modification of Netwon's, it's the destruction and replacement of it. Of course those are two extreme wolrdviews, so maybe the answer lies somewhere in the middle. Personally I think that when a present paradigm cannot bear any more anomalies, it must be replaced. And that's not really starting over, it's more a whittling away toward a truer model. 

As a biologist though, I don't think we are at a point yet where we even need to worry about such matters. I think most biological fields haven't gotten past the basic task of discerning the basic behavior of all the important components in their system. We are still discovering the basic mechanisms used by cells, not to mention the basic mechanisms used by closely related cells to interact with less closely related cells (or ecology as you might say). So maybe ask again in a couple centuries.

some results which can be true or not!!!!!!!!!!! or may be a paper!

It is very critical question, I think there is no end point of research or other assessments because environment or other fields of research are changing after another with human beings. So day by day different types of problems will be created and also needed new research to solve the problem. That why, I think research will be continued until the world existence.

Research itself means search again and again, and you will always find new thing!!!

At the end of World War II, Vannevar Bush of the US Office of Scientific Research and Development issued a very influential report entitled "Science, the endless frontier." I have provided a link to the original. That report drove the establishment of Federal science funding in the US for the second half of the 20th century.

https://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/vbush1945.htm

I agree with Mr. Sana Ullah that research will go on forever, not for the sake of science or human welfare but for increase in impact factor.

For research, you can always find something to do as long as enough funds are provided, but there is no guarantee that a positive outcome will obtain.

Research will only come to an end when all questions have been answered. Which in it self is not possible, because from each answered on a particular research question, another research question arise. When research comes to an end, then it is the end of human progression. Imagine that research stops when analog phone was invented, we would not have the current digital phones that we do have now. My take is that research never ends, there will always arise questions to be answered or a need to be met.

Hello Arvind ji, Greetings;

In my point of view research is continuous one especially in sciences in deeper means in life sciences. Modern days there are more and more applied techniques have been developed as far as the techniques have focused on natural based, pollution free, adverse effects free and etc.. we can develop our research hypothesis as broader as possible.. The natural based research had very feasible outcome in all the areas. I think research might not have an end. To be continued one by one for longer years.

Not only in academic research but also in routine living research , when we solve a problem , we face to many other questions always more than the first one !!

thanks for your question

never-ending

probably when the solutions achieved are not competitive with the existing ones or when it become difficult to publish

In my opinion, there is a possibility for an end of scientific research in a particular field if its subject has been scientifically refuted thoroughly enough. Research in the fields of epicycles and aether has likely reached its end. But as far as other fields go, I think research is only limited by the limits of the researchers.

there can not be an end to research unless your funding is over and look for another job. More seriously, research can not end because we all have a different brain filled with different questions and doubts. As Humans we always look for answers.

our scientist' Avecina" says: everybody's world is as big as his mind, if we have vast mind we will need research to recognition of our world.