Scientists and researchers should focus their attention on areas that are likely to benefit the greatest amount of people.
Should scientists focus on cancer research or rather on exploring the depths of the universe? For the layperson this question is hard to answer. However, it deals with a matter of significant social importance – what should be the purpose of scientific study. For those who believe the ultimate goal of science should be the betterment of society, it may seem natural to further suggest that scientist only focus their attention on those matters which can maximize social welfare. Nevertheless, both practical as well as theoretical considerations render such an argument counter-productive and potentially even deleterious to science and society at large.
Primarily, science is constantly plagued by a common concern, that the final application of any form of research is ultimately unknown. The first person to describe the unimaginable amount of energy released in nuclear fission could not have imagined that one day it would be used to unleash the world most destructive weapon. At the same time the same scientific discovery was used to build nuclear power plants which provided millions with inexpensive and environmental safe energy. It is thus hard to say whether ultimately such research has been beneficial or not.
Additionally, research often builds on previous research. While the discovery of DNA in the early 1950s was, on its own, neither harmful nor beneficial, further research that used previously discovered knowledge to identify and remedy birth defects has undoubtedly greatly benefitted humanity. Should we then say that researchers should never have focused on discovering the secrets of DNA?
Furthermore, by subjecting scientific research to cost-benefit analysis we may discourage scientists with potentially ground-breaking discoveries from participating in research in the first place. If we were to solely fund neurological research we may disincentive those interested in cardiology in performing research in the first place. While perhaps allowing us to cure patients of many neurological defects we may miss out on crucial knowledge which could have prevented many deaths from cardiac arrhythmia.
Nevertheless, a reasonable person may argue that the role of science is the betterment of society. Scientific funding should therefore be used solely as a tool to advance this goal. While this argument deserves merit it fails to account for the inherent inability to measure the betterment of society. For example, finding the cure to a certain disease might save 100 people in the present, however, funding research in a different field may contain a 10% of saving 10000! Who are we to say which research is more valuable to society at large?
Scientific progress has proven the most valuable tool at our disposal for improving the quality of lives of society at large. However, attempting to fine tune the flow of funds to maximize social welfare is undoubtedly prone to failure. As such, we must labour to allow science to flourish freely and allow scientists and researchers to focus their attention on their areas of interest.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-07-21 | Inbar Amit | view | |
| 2019-07-21 | Inbar Amit | 66 | view |
- A nation should require all of its students to study the same national curriculum until they enter college. 66
- Should humans only save species which are at risk of extinction because of human activities? 70
- The government should provide funding to the arts to ensure that they can flourish. 83
- Political scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in a way no speaker ever could. 70
- Nations should pass laws to preserve any remaining wilderness areas in their natural state, even if these areas could be developed for economic gain. 83
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 511, Rule ID: BOTH_AS_WELL_AS[1]
Message: Probable usage error. Use 'and' after 'both'.
Suggestion: and
...l welfare. Nevertheless, both practical as well as theoretical considerations render such ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 198, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...ipating in research in the first place. If we were to solely fund neurological res...
^^
Line 7, column 340, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “While” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...performing research in the first place. While perhaps allowing us to cure patients of...
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, furthermore, however, if, may, nevertheless, so, then, therefore, thus, well, while, for example, as well as, in the first place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 16.0 19.5258426966 82% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.4196629213 145% => OK
Conjunction : 9.0 14.8657303371 61% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 30.0 33.0505617978 91% => OK
Preposition: 72.0 58.6224719101 123% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 12.9106741573 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2602.0 2235.4752809 116% => OK
No of words: 482.0 442.535393258 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.39834024896 5.05705443957 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.68556276237 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.0248080402 2.79657885939 108% => OK
Unique words: 258.0 215.323595506 120% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.535269709544 0.4932671777 109% => OK
syllable_count: 805.5 704.065955056 114% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 53.7195041299 60.3974514979 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.272727273 118.986275619 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.9090909091 23.4991977007 93% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.13636363636 5.21951772744 118% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 5.13820224719 195% => 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: 0.237631246334 0.243740707755 97% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0695710590442 0.0831039109588 84% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0825919841968 0.0758088955206 109% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.121990059503 0.150359130593 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0562840308751 0.0667264976115 84% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.0 14.1392134831 106% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 41.7 48.8420337079 85% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.1743820225 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.04 12.1639044944 115% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.94 8.38706741573 107% => OK
difficult_words: 130.0 100.480337079 129% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => 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.