Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear.
The speaker claims that the government should not fund scientific research whose consequences are unclear. Though I also believe that it is important to consider the risks of a project before funding it, I disagree that the government should stop funding such projects altogether. The advantages and disadvantages need to be weighed before taking any decision in this regard.
Firstly, we must understand that the scope of misuse is very high in most of the scientific work being conducted nowadays. Consider the applications of Artificial Intelligence or AI as an example. There is a lot of research going on currently in using AI for solving many problems in healthcare such as detection of tumors in cancer patients and rehabilitation and care of elderly and handicapped individuals. However, there are also a few cases of AI technologies being misused to spread fake news and inappropriate propaganda by the onset of DeepFake videos, where any individual's face and voice can be copied and altered to spread harmful messages to society via social media platforms. In this case, we cannot completely stop funding the projects in AI which have such a bright potential to help us tackle the worlds health problems because we fear that it may also lead to an increase in misuse of the technology. Rather, we should have checks and balances in place to ensure that the research being conducted is for the intended purposes.
Furthermore, consider the government funding of scientific research into aerospace and defense technologies. The investment of money in these technologies is essential for any country so that it can be prepared to defend itself against foreign threats such as another country attacking or a terrorist attack. Nevertheless, although these technologies are kept highly confidential and much security is placed to ensure it does not fall into the wrong hands, there have been numerous cases where government technology has been stolen and misused by violent terrorist groups to perform attacks on the same country. However, this does not mean that the government should stop funding these research projects because of the potential threat they might face if misused.
In conclusion, it might be a risky endeavor to fund some technologies or research projects which have a chance of being wrongly used by certain groups of people. However, if the positives of promoting these projects overweigh the potential risks, then the government must definitely support such projects.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-23 | Himanshu Sharma | 50 | view |
| 2020-01-18 | jason123 | 75 | view |
| 2019-12-06 | pooja.kakde@gmail.com | 58 | view |
| 2019-12-06 | pooja.kakde@gmail.com | 16 | view |
| 2019-11-24 | skjasharif | 50 | view |
- Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear. 58
- In any field of inquiry, the beginner is more likely than the expert to make important contributions. 66
- There is now evidence that the relaxed pace of life in small towns promotes better health and greater longevity thandoes the hectic pace of life in big cities. Businesses in the small town of Leeville report fewer days of sick leave takenby individual wor 83
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 815, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'worlds'' or 'world's'?
Suggestion: worlds'; world's
... bright potential to help us tackle the worlds health problems because we fear that it...
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, first, firstly, furthermore, however, if, may, nevertheless, so, then, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.5258426966 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.4196629213 105% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 14.8657303371 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 33.0505617978 91% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 58.6224719101 84% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 12.9106741573 77% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2109.0 2235.4752809 94% => OK
No of words: 400.0 442.535393258 90% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.2725 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.472135955 4.55969084622 98% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.91903130336 2.79657885939 104% => OK
Unique words: 208.0 215.323595506 97% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.52 0.4932671777 105% => OK
syllable_count: 647.1 704.065955056 92% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 20.2370786517 74% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 26.0 23.0359550562 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 65.0860626828 60.3974514979 108% => OK
Chars per sentence: 140.6 118.986275619 118% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.6666666667 23.4991977007 113% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.6 5.21951772744 126% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 10.2758426966 58% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => OK
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: 0.26313113519 0.243740707755 108% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.105126914008 0.0831039109588 127% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.143262786251 0.0758088955206 189% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.186575490769 0.150359130593 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.137347614897 0.0667264976115 206% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.7 14.1392134831 118% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.8420337079 92% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.1743820225 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 12.1639044944 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.87 8.38706741573 106% => OK
difficult_words: 100.0 100.480337079 100% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.2143820225 111% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.