Scientists and other researchers should focus their research on areas that are likely to benefit the greatest number of people.
The task of researchers and scientists is to generate knowledge and, therefore, contribute to the wellbeing of a society. One important factor that any scientist should take into account when deciding upon its research focus is its relevance. As it will be shown from a utilitarian point of view, this relevance is given by benefitting the greatest number of people.
First of all, the benefiting the greatest amount of people increases the welfare of the whole society. From a utilitarian point of view, any action is justifiable that reaches this goal. This is closely linked to the conception of utility. In a society, everybody is equal and, thus, should be given equal preferences. Any action, and therefore also the decision of a scientist’s research focus, should be guided by the principle that the utility of the society must be increased. The individual utilities, in consequence, are added and the group with the largest utility selected. Improving the utility of the group will automatically improve the welfare and wellbeing of the whole society. This implies that minorities are only a secondary concern. For example, should a scientist in Switzerland rather put his or her research efforts into cancer treatment or a rare genetic disease? Taking into account that the number of deaths in Switzerland connected to cancer is much higher than the number of deaths resulting from the genetic disease, focusing on the cancer treatment will benefit more people than curing the genetic disease. Therefore, by adding and comparing the utilities of the two groups, one can infer that the utility of the whole society will be improved by focusing on the cancer treatment, which is the larger of the two groups. Following from this, the scientist must focus on the research that provides the most value to the largest possible group.
Secondly, focusing on a relevant topic will provide the scientist with more potential funding than studying a tangential subject. Scientist are funded by national institutions like the Swiss National Fund but also private organization like Cancer Foundation Switzerland. Therefore, it will be easier to find the means to realize a study if it benefits a great number of people. On a national level, the scientist following utilitarian principles is more likely to receive state funding because politicians care about their constituents and the large masses. In the private sector, the utilitarian academic has access to a larger variance of foundations and corporations than the scientist that focuses on a seemingly irrelevant topic of society. Receiving more funding will increase the quality of a study substantially because more complex, time-intensive and resourceful experiments can be executed. This again improves the welfare and utility of the whole society.
Of course, applying such a utilitarian view inherently overlooks the concerns of minorities. It is biased towards the large masses and willingly accepts the fact that smaller groups of people are ignored. However, the utilitarian theory does not exclude the concerns of the minority. It simply gives preference to the majority in a first step, which does not mean that secondary concerns are not respected in the future.
Applying a utilitarian view and measure the actions of scientists on the possible consequences for the whole society justifies to focus on the interest of the greatest number of people. Following the principle of equality and utility will lead to an overall improvement of the welfare of society and guarantees the relevance of the research topic. In addition to that, research that is backed by a broad and general interest is more likely to receive the necessary funding. This improves the overall quality of the scientific study and maximizes a society’s utility. Following from this, it is cardinal that scientists focus on maximizing the greater good.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2020-01-20 | shoeb_athar | 83 | view |
| 2020-01-07 | DH123 | 70 | view |
| 2019-12-28 | Jianmo | 66 | view |
| 2019-11-27 | ken10091995 | 50 | view |
| 2019-10-30 | Mukul | 50 | view |
- Politicians should pursue common ground and reasonable consensus rather than elusive ideals. 82
- Scientists and other researchers should focus their research on areas that are likely to benefit the greatest number of people. 73
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college.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 66
- As people rely more and more on technology to solve problems, the ability of humans tothink for themselves will surely deteriorate. 75
- Claim Though often considered an objective pursuit learning about the historical past requires creativity Reason Because we can never know the past directly we must reconstruct it by imaginatively interpreting historical accounts documents and artifacts 61
Comments
Essay evaluation report
suggestions:
1. To get higher marks, better to argue against the statement. While you most likely agree with the statement.
2. Better to support or against one side in 3-4 arguments always. not try to discuss on both sides.
3. how to give in 3-4 arguments? We may consider TLPE:
T means Time: put the argument on a time frame to check out it is correct or not. For example, we may say: it works today, it may not work on future.
L means Location: test the argument on different locations/countries/regions. For example, we may say: it works on location(country, region...) A, it may not work on location(country, region...) B.
P means People: test the argument on people. for example, it works on people A, it may not work on people B.
E means Event: for example, it works on event (occasion, context...) A, it may not work on it works on event (occasion, context...) B. like in this assay about context:
https://www.testbig.com/gmatgre-issue-task-essays/claim-though-often-co…
----------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Final score: 4.0 out of 6
Category: Good Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 31 15
No. of Words: 621 350
No. of Characters: 3203 1500
No. of Different Words: 260 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.992 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.158 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.818 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 261 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 209 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 140 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 95 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 20.032 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 7.399 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.419 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.265 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.435 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.051 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, however, if, look, second, secondly, so, therefore, thus, well, for example, in addition, of course, first of all
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.5258426966 128% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.4196629213 129% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 14.8657303371 135% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.3162921348 141% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 33.0505617978 97% => OK
Preposition: 85.0 58.6224719101 145% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 12.9106741573 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3286.0 2235.4752809 147% => OK
No of words: 621.0 442.535393258 140% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.29146537842 5.05705443957 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.991980728 4.55969084622 109% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92143231838 2.79657885939 104% => OK
Unique words: 267.0 215.323595506 124% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.429951690821 0.4932671777 87% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 1050.3 704.065955056 149% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 31.0 20.2370786517 153% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 44.7824664663 60.3974514979 74% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.0 118.986275619 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.0322580645 23.4991977007 85% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.22580645161 5.21951772744 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 17.0 10.2758426966 165% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 8.0 4.83258426966 166% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.287128663225 0.243740707755 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0701428533025 0.0831039109588 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0669321023167 0.0758088955206 88% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.173044589172 0.150359130593 115% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.10159345485 0.0667264976115 152% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.1392134831 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.72 48.8420337079 87% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.3 12.1743820225 101% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.4 12.1639044944 110% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.87 8.38706741573 106% => OK
difficult_words: 167.0 100.480337079 166% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.