Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear.
Scientific research is the fundamental way of technology and development to grow and wind up in being something more and more useful throughout humans' history. It has always been like this, and, since the beginning of our kind, findings and discoveries have marked our path toward the building of a burgeoning and higher society. Without any doubt, governments are expected to fund as many scientific research as they can afford to, but this often means that, given that often nations do not have the possibility to endlessly fund any of the fund-demaning sectors, governments have to choose whether to fund or not a certain reserach. It is unobjectable that the above statement, that is, the policy to only fund research whose consequences are unclear, is the worst mistake that a governor could make. Both our history and the inherent meaning of science expounds us why it would be wrong not to fund uncertain researches.
In fact, to begin with, several milestones of the history of the human kind are determined by huge and unexpected scientific revolutions. From the discovery of fire, that dramatically modified our life giving us the power to manage and control a natural and efficient form of energy; to the couple of industrial revolutions that occurred in the last two centuries and a half, that were both pivotal in the creation of the modern societal system we are used to. In both the cases, the finding were almost fortuitus, there were no expectation to discover fire nor to revolution the world with a new industrial set. Galileo Galilei, who inventied telescopes, Tesla, for his discoveries about electricity, and even Cristofer Colon with America: they all share one undoubtedly crucial aspect in their scientific research. Namely, they had no idea what they were about to find. Aligning to these evedences, it seems clear to me that scientific research is meant to be made about aspects of our knowledge that not only promise us to bring to some well-planned conclusion, but that are also opened to possible unexpected and unpredected consequences.
In the same way, we can follow the model mainteined by the same Galileo Galilei about scientific research. He basically stated that to demonstrate something new, scientists had to make hypotesis, follow experimental paths, and eventually assert what they find. Hence, it is to be deemed correct that scientific research is something that, based on the past experiences and hypotesis, can lead to anything the non pedestrian scientist can imagine about, even following a flux of hypotesis that was not previously planned. This is the way that some world-wide very famous scientist built their success: Einstein, above all, with his almost absurd experiments about relativity, whose consequences were concretely obscure. If his researches had not been funded by anyone, now we would still being dreaming about the un-arrivable diety called Selene that for ancient Greek was the Moon.
On the other hand, it is true that, sometimes, research can result in deleterious and harming discoveries. When, during World War II, nations spent much of their money for chemistry research, they could not even imagine that they were funding the discovery of nuclear bombs and other similar weapons of massive destruction. It is apparently true, then, tha governments should not blindly fund researches without a minimu idea of what they are effectively funding. As a matter of fact, though, those chemistry findings have been the base for what is now called Quantum Theory, a physical set of rules that are crucial in the aknowledging of out reality and universe.
As it is obvious, hence, even if there is a subtle chance for scientists to discover something horrendous or seriously dangerous, governments should still plan to fund the more researches they can. In fact, the most important steps in our history have been made thanks to wierd and unexpected findings.
| 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 |
- Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear 92
- Politicians should pursue common ground and reasonable consensus rather than elusive ideals. 16
- The following was written as a part of an application for a small-business loan by a group of developers in the city of Monroe."A jazz music club in Monroe would be a tremendously profitable enterprise. Currently, the nearest jazz club is 65 miles aw 78
- It is primarily through our identification with social groups that we define ourselves. 83
- Politicians should pursue common ground and reasonable consensus rather than elusive ideals. 70
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 145, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[2]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'humans'' or 'human's'?
Suggestion: humans'; human's
...mething more and more useful throughout humans history. It has always been like this, ...
^^^^^^
Line 1, column 386, Rule ID: MANY_NN_U[4]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun research seems to be uncountable; consider using: 'much scientific research', 'a good deal of scientific research'.
Suggestion: much scientific research; a good deal of scientific research
...bt, governments are expected to fund as many scientific research as they can afford to, but this often m...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 353, Rule ID: PAST_EXPERIENCE_MEMORY[1]
Message: Use simply 'experiences'.
Suggestion: experiences
...esearch is something that, based on the past experiences and hypotesis, can lead to anything the...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, but, hence, if, so, still, then, well, in fact, as a matter of fact, it is true, to begin with, in the same way, on the other hand
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 37.0 19.5258426966 189% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 23.0 14.8657303371 155% => OK
Relative clauses : 23.0 11.3162921348 203% => Less relative clauses wanted (maybe 'which' is over used).
Pronoun: 62.0 33.0505617978 188% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 88.0 58.6224719101 150% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 12.9106741573 54% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3296.0 2235.4752809 147% => OK
No of words: 640.0 442.535393258 145% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.15 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.02973371873 4.55969084622 110% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.83628656598 2.79657885939 101% => OK
Unique words: 332.0 215.323595506 154% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.51875 0.4932671777 105% => OK
syllable_count: 1022.4 704.065955056 145% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 15.0 6.24550561798 240% => Less pronouns wanted as sentence beginning.
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 13.0 4.38483146067 296% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 29.0 23.0359550562 126% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 65.6775242384 60.3974514979 109% => OK
Chars per sentence: 149.818181818 118.986275619 126% => OK
Words per sentence: 29.0909090909 23.4991977007 124% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.72727272727 5.21951772744 129% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.296714768241 0.243740707755 122% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0771660438114 0.0831039109588 93% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0846721172056 0.0758088955206 112% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.161844422211 0.150359130593 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0951053213088 0.0667264976115 143% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.4 14.1392134831 123% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 42.04 48.8420337079 86% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.1743820225 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.18 12.1639044944 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.97 8.38706741573 107% => OK
difficult_words: 158.0 100.480337079 157% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 19.0 11.8971910112 160% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.6 11.2143820225 121% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.