Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear.
Every person who is a newcomer to the field of scientific research and is being introduced to the rigors of it, will come across this empirical question. The age old question that should any "body" even bother to carry out an experimentation whose results and the side effects don't seem to be lucid enough? The "body" could be anyone; an agency, a person with right motives, or the government. This prompt asks whether the governments should invest in a scientific research which doesn't have a limpid end fleshed out. I strongly disagree to the prompt above, because of the following three reasonings.
Firstly, If every research was to be so fleshed out and be so sure to predict a certain result and all it's side effects, then, frankly, there wouldn't have been any progress at all. Majority of the significant discoveries and inventions that have enlightened the scientific community all over the globe has been because of the unpredictable nature of the experimentations. For example, if Alexendar Fleming hadn't carried out his experimentations on the lesser significant and conceptually immature research topic, he wouldn't have eventually stumbled upon the what we like to call a modern day panacea, the "Pennicilin". Such serendipitous encounters are only possible if we are willing to take enough risks. In other words, serendipitous encounters imply that there are some negative encounters too, but we must be able to take those risks and increase the chances of those lucky breakthroughs to happen.
The second reason why I disagree with the given suggestion is that the majority of the research is not carried out by the mature and experienced researchers . It is obvious that the more experienced researches are more likely to create a more thought through and predictable research with relatively minor risks associated with it. And rightly so the government are interested in those types of researches just for the lesser risk prospect. But, those type of well panned out researches are very rare because of both the highly proficient scientists required to be involved in it and the fact that such researches are possible in only typical circumstances-qualitative researches are relatively risk free in comparison to quantitative research-. This implies that the many researches are in-fact premature and if the governments were to invest in only those well though out rare researches, then plenty of promising research would go begging. For example, the successful countries harbouring a healthy scientific environment have the tendency to support the emerging researches so that more work could be done.
However, there may arise a counterargument that if the government is so offhand in it's approach in providing funding, then a lot of resources may be wasted. But in order to encourage innovation and more breakthroughs an impasse between the two approaches must be made. There needs to be a balance between supporting the emerging talent and investing on the wise heads of the experienced researchers. That is why governments all around the globe must incline towards providing funding to the researches with a deft balance between backing the innovation and investing in the assured.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-04-03 | guozhishan | 50 | view |
| 2024-03-29 | shahajan999 | 66 | view |
| 2023-10-22 | raghavchauhan619 | 83 | view |
| 2023-10-20 | Juhong Park | 62 | view |
| 2023-10-10 | georgez | 58 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 288, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...tion whose results and the side effects dont seem to be lucid enough? The 'body...
^^^^
Line 1, column 501, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: doesn't
...d invest in a scientific research which doesnt have a limpid end fleshed out. I strong...
^^^^^^
Line 2, column 143, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
... its side effects, then, frankly, there wouldnt have been any progress at all. Majority...
^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 407, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: hadn't
...ions. For example, if Alexendar Fleming hadnt carried out his experimentations on the...
^^^^^
Line 2, column 517, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...onceptually immature research topic, he wouldnt have eventually stumbled upon the what ...
^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 157, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...y the mature and experienced researchers . It is obvious that the more experienced...
^^
Line 4, column 696, Rule ID: BEEN_PART_AGREEMENT[2]
Message: Consider using a past participle here: 'risked'.
Suggestion: risked
...s-qualitative researches are relatively risk free in comparison to quantitative rese...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, firstly, frankly, however, if, may, second, so, then, well, as to, for example, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 31.0 19.5258426966 159% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 18.0 14.8657303371 121% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 31.0 33.0505617978 94% => OK
Preposition: 71.0 58.6224719101 121% => OK
Nominalization: 13.0 12.9106741573 101% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2721.0 2235.4752809 122% => OK
No of words: 516.0 442.535393258 117% => OK
Chars per words: 5.27325581395 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.76609204519 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.29066127109 2.79657885939 118% => OK
Unique words: 263.0 215.323595506 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.509689922481 0.4932671777 103% => OK
syllable_count: 852.3 704.065955056 121% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 2.0 4.38483146067 46% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.5336342872 60.3974514979 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 136.05 118.986275619 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.8 23.4991977007 110% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.3 5.21951772744 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 7.80617977528 90% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.218768373093 0.243740707755 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0649079152008 0.0831039109588 78% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0558126594117 0.0758088955206 74% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.124641372542 0.150359130593 83% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0554373838676 0.0667264976115 83% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.3 14.1392134831 115% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 37.64 48.8420337079 77% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.1743820225 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.58 12.1639044944 112% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.64 8.38706741573 103% => OK
difficult_words: 123.0 100.480337079 122% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => 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: 70.83 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.25 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.