Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
The distribution and allocation of public funds for scientific research has been a matter of contention since the inception of government aided research. The recommendation is that the government should not fund research whose consequence is not clear. The recommendation is perilous in the fact that the consequence of actual ground breaking research is never clear, and even if the expected consequences are clarified, they may not perspire from the actual results of the research. Thus the government should fund research without clear consequences but should be wary of spurious research claims.
In most research projects, the researchers do not have any idea what the end product will look like. They just start off with an idea, that they wish to explore. Government should fund projects based on these ideas alone. For instance, the Manhattan project has been started and funded to study how radioactivity could give the Allied forces an upper hand in the world war too. It started off with nothing more than an idea to use radioactivity and without any clear projected consequences. Nevertheless, they ended up creating the atomic bomb, and delineating the impacts of nuclear warfare.
In addition to this, there are several cases in which the stipulated consequence of the research is not met but the results transpire an equally, if not more, resounding impact on the world, than the initially intended effect. The project of DARPA to develop inter continental ballistic missiles in response to Nazi's V12 missiles was not a success during world war 2 but was the bedrock on which the ensuing space program by NASA was based on.
On the other hand, even if projects started with a definite goal, they may not reach there and the given consequence may never be achieved. This can be best exemplified by the Concorde issue, which aimed at researching and developing a supersonic passenger carrier, which could drastically cut down flying time while having minimal effect on the comfort of the ride. While both the British and the French governments poured money into this project and it went of for years, the clearly mentioned goal and consequence of the project was never met, as the Concorde failed to meet passenger travel requirements and was disbanded after 8 years and a loss of millions of Pounds.
While it is important to fund abstract research, there are several cases where the government has been duped and lost a lot of taxpayer's money. It is true that most research fails and don't give intended results, there are several cases in which preliminary results have been purposely changed and the government been cheated of its money. Such is the case of a bio-tech startup which touted the ability to measure blood sugar by contact instead of skin penetration. The application of this was abound and the results seemed promising for the government to fund it. The end result was a felony charge on the 3 lead researchers and more than 7 million USD wasted.
Thus it can be concluded that though the government should be careful of the what research it funds, only funding research with a clear consequence will not only be harmful for the overall development and research industry but will also have major practical difficulties due to the enigmatic and arcane nature of science. This is mysterious and opportunistic nature of research best embodied in the words of Dr. Oppenheimer, "no research is done for its applicability, it is done because it can be done".
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-03-29 | shahajan999 | 66 | view |
| 2023-09-29 | seoul_milk | 83 | view |
| 2023-08-07 | sark | 60 | view |
| 2023-07-27 | cringelord | 79 | view |
| 2023-07-27 | cringelord | 45 | view |
- Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take In developing a 66
- The well being of a society is enhanced when many of its people question authority Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take In developing and su 66
- An ailing patient should have easy access to his or her doctor s record of treating similarly afflicted patients Through gaining such access the ailing patient may better determine whether the doctor is competent to treat that medical condition Write a re 78
- The following opinion was provided in a letter to the editor of a national aeronautics magazine Manned space flight is costly and dangerous Moreover the recent success of a series of unmanned space probes and satellites has demonstrated that a great deal 58
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 254, Rule ID: ENGLISH_WORD_REPEAT_BEGINNING_RULE
Message: Three successive sentences begin with the same word. Reword the sentence or use a thesaurus to find a synonym.
...esearch whose consequence is not clear. The recommendation is perilous in the fact ...
^^^
Line 1, column 485, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
...rom the actual results of the research. Thus the government should fund research wit...
^^^^
Line 9, column 185, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...It is true that most research fails and dont give intended results, there are severa...
^^^^
Line 9, column 495, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'abounded'.
Suggestion: abounded
...enetration. The application of this was abound and the results seemed promising for th...
^^^^^^
Line 11, column 1, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Thus,
... and more than 7 million USD wasted. Thus it can be concluded that though the gov...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, if, look, may, nevertheless, so, thus, while, for instance, in addition, it is true, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 34.0 19.5258426966 174% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.4196629213 129% => OK
Conjunction : 24.0 14.8657303371 161% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 33.0505617978 82% => OK
Preposition: 68.0 58.6224719101 116% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 12.9106741573 201% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2927.0 2235.4752809 131% => OK
No of words: 581.0 442.535393258 131% => OK
Chars per words: 5.03786574871 5.05705443957 100% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.90957651803 4.55969084622 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.79967821956 2.79657885939 100% => OK
Unique words: 286.0 215.323595506 133% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.492254733219 0.4932671777 100% => OK
syllable_count: 879.3 704.065955056 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.59117977528 94% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Article: 9.0 4.99550561798 180% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 23.0359550562 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 71.1552254982 60.3974514979 118% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.045454545 118.986275619 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.4090909091 23.4991977007 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.13636363636 5.21951772744 98% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 5.13820224719 253% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.230442755399 0.243740707755 95% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0799261408972 0.0831039109588 96% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0602555166924 0.0758088955206 79% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.124057511316 0.150359130593 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0495035260276 0.0667264976115 74% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.5 14.1392134831 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 53.55 48.8420337079 110% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.25 12.1639044944 101% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.6 8.38706741573 103% => OK
difficult_words: 135.0 100.480337079 134% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.2143820225 111% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.