Governments should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development.
Reading this statement, many people might think it is a great idea because of the assumption that government restrictions on scientific research not only harms freedom of expression and thought but also the potential discoveries scientists can make. However, I disagree with the following statement because government restrictions, in a limited sense, on scientific research and development are important in order to ensure that there is a standard of ethics followed.
When a government does not place restrictions on scientific development, we witness the deceit and dishonesty that occurred with Henrietta Lacks. Lacks was an African America woman who had her cancer cells used to create the HeLa cell, the first immortal cell line that is still used today, over a century later. However, her cancer cells were used without her consent and she was not credited for helping aid in the discovery. She received no payment, which after her death, would have greatly helped her family and children because she came from an impoverished backgorund. If this were to occur today, many people would be outraged and the perpetrators would definitely have been arrested. However, back then, there were no government restrictions on scientific research or an ethics code to ensure that Lacks got justice. This situation with Henrietta shows the importance of having government restrictions on scientific research and development, especially if human subjects are involved. Without them, people can be easily victimized and manipulated as Henrietta was.
Additionally, another example of why government restrictions are necessary so that the line of ethics is not crossed is cloning. Although I am sure there has been development and research towards trying to clone objects, animals, and people, the reason why it is not common or at a global scale because of the extreme line of ethics it would cross. If scientists started cloning animals or even people, although it would be a great achievement in the history of science, it could breach a major code of ethics. People could be cloned without their permission or clones could be used to build a super army, which would become potentially dangerous. Questions would arise: does a clone have autonomy? Does a clone have the same rights as a human? Government restrictions prevent such catastrophic issues from emerging that could potentially end up questioning what it means to be human.
Furthermore, government restrictions not only ensure the protection of human subjects but they also ensure that scientists are not creating or developing something that can be potentially dangerous for a society. An example of this can be seen with nuclear bombs. History shows how much disaster was caused and how many lives were taken during World War II with the bombings at Hiroshima. Now, we do not see nuclear warfare and that is due to government restrictions. Without them, it would be fairly easy for countries to develop nuclear weapons or something even worse than that to terrorize other countries and their people.
People might think of government restrictions as a barrier towards development in science, but in the end they are there for the greater good. They make sure people are protected so that their autonomy is not violated and they assure that science is not used maliciously or with harm in mind.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-20 | pratysinha | 50 | view |
| 2020-01-19 | jason123 | 75 | view |
| 2020-01-09 | asdfjmn | 66 | view |
| 2019-11-04 | OliverRaab | 66 | view |
| 2019-11-04 | seonjungkim | 66 | view |
- SuperCorp recently moved its headquarters to Corporateville. The recent surge in the number of homeowners in Corporateville proves that Corporateville is a superior place to live than Middlesburg, the home of SuperCorp's original headquarters. Moreov 35
- Governments should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development. 66
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 886, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... questioning what it means to be human. Furthermore, government restrictions not...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, so, still, then
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 34.0 19.6327345309 173% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.9520958084 139% => OK
Conjunction : 24.0 11.1786427146 215% => Less conjunction wanted
Relative clauses : 17.0 13.6137724551 125% => OK
Pronoun: 45.0 28.8173652695 156% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 53.0 55.5748502994 95% => OK
Nominalization: 26.0 16.3942115768 159% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2823.0 2260.96107784 125% => OK
No of words: 542.0 441.139720559 123% => OK
Chars per words: 5.20848708487 5.12650576532 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.82502781895 4.56307096286 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.86074082134 2.78398813304 103% => OK
Unique words: 258.0 204.123752495 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.476014760148 0.468620217663 102% => OK
syllable_count: 863.1 705.55239521 122% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59920159681 100% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 4.96107784431 181% => OK
Article: 3.0 8.76447105788 34% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 2.70958083832 185% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.67365269461 119% => OK
Preposition: 5.0 4.22255489022 118% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 24.0 19.7664670659 121% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 22.8473053892 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.5309267374 57.8364921388 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 117.625 119.503703932 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.5833333333 23.324526521 97% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.45833333333 5.70786347227 43% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 5.15768463074 97% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.25449101796 19% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 8.20758483034 110% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 6.88822355289 160% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.67664670659 86% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.192498245325 0.218282227539 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0628808948373 0.0743258471296 85% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0864552756502 0.0701772020484 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.110728943593 0.128457276422 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0636214884475 0.0628817314937 101% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.4 14.3799401198 100% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.3550499002 102% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.1628742515 123% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.197005988 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.23 12.5979740519 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.31 8.32208582834 100% => OK
difficult_words: 123.0 98.500998004 125% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.0 12.3882235529 113% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.1389221557 97% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.9071856287 118% => 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.