Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear.
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 you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
The topic at hand raises a controversial issue of government funding of scientific research. Indisputably, any government should investigate potential benefits and downsides of the projects they invest in. However, it is extremely difficult to predict consequences of a research project at the early stage. Then, such a policy if not treated carefully may cut funding from many potentially valuable scientific projects, which is unlikely a desired outcome. Thus, I would argue that we shouldn’t take funding from the research projects that don’t have clear consequences without considering other factors.
To begin with, we cannot be sure about the consequences of any scientific project by definition because science deals with the unknown. The scientists may have some prediction of the result, but the outcome is typically different from what is anticipated, and this is normal in science. Thus, adopting such a criterion for funding research will result in almost all potential scientific projects losing their funding and shutting down. This is unlikely a desired consequence of this policy. Instead, we should focus on probabilistic criteria if we want to apply this policy and consider probabilities of potential outcomes of the research.
Furthermore, if we apply the recommendation of funding only scientific research with predictable consequences, we are likely to end up in the situation where the government finances only applied research with specific questions, such as finding a cure to an existing disease or developing a weapon. Fundamental research which dives into the basics of our world that implies dealing with the unknown the most will then be underinvested although it has the highest potential for valuable discoveries. For example, most of modern technologies comes from the fundamental research in physics which uncovered electricity and magnetism and allowed us to create computers. If the governments in the past didn’t fund that research properly, we wouldn’t have such a rapid development now.
However, one could admit that the proposed policy has its benefits, namely cutting expenses on the projects with questionable goals and outcomes. For example, in the second half of twentieth century, there was a big interest in extrasensory research. Many pseudo-sciences investigated paranormal abilities of people and gained government grants in countries like the USA or the USSR which wanted to use that research as means of winning the Cold War. That research turned out to be useless but it consumed a lot of budget money. Such policy could’ve prevented those spending. Nevertheless, the policy that approved only the research with proven and ethical methods would work better as it wouldn’t shut down credible research projects with unpredictable results.
In the end, although policy of funding scientific project based on the predictability of their findings seems a good idea, we should be skeptical about it as it has a potential of cutting funds from a lot of potentially valuable project along with the inefficient projects. If anything, we had better focus on investigating the methods of the research to be conducted and judging by their validity and ethical warrant to give funding only to proper scientific projects.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2024-03-29 | shahajan999 | 66 | view |
| 2023-09-29 | seoul_milk | 83 | view |
| 2023-08-07 | sark | 60 | view |
| 2023-07-27 | cringelord | 79 | view |
| 2023-07-27 | cringelord | 45 | view |
- In any situation progress requires discussion among people who have contrasting points of views Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take In deve 83
- Summarize the main points in the lecture and then explain how they cast doubt on the ideas in the reading passage Passage Because of its remote location only a few species of plants and animals thrived on Easter Island and the water surrounding it contain 3
- Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear 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 you take In developing a 79
- Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequence are unclear 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 you take In developing an 79
- Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequence are unclear 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 you take In developing an 45
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 527, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'technologies'' or 'technology's'?
Suggestion: technologies'; technology's
...iscoveries. For example, most of modern technologies comes from the fundamental research in ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 683, Rule ID: COMP_THAN[3]
Message: Comparison requires 'than', not 'then' nor 'as'.
Suggestion: than
...n and ethical methods would work better as it wouldn’t shut down credible research...
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, furthermore, however, if, may, nevertheless, second, so, then, thus, for example, such as, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 13.0 19.5258426966 67% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 36.0 33.0505617978 109% => OK
Preposition: 75.0 58.6224719101 128% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2771.0 2235.4752809 124% => OK
No of words: 508.0 442.535393258 115% => OK
Chars per words: 5.45472440945 5.05705443957 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.74751043592 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.08439567047 2.79657885939 110% => OK
Unique words: 263.0 215.323595506 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.517716535433 0.4932671777 105% => OK
syllable_count: 843.3 704.065955056 120% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 10.0 6.24550561798 160% => OK
Article: 3.0 4.99550561798 60% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 60.7241595555 60.3974514979 101% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.954545455 118.986275619 106% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.0909090909 23.4991977007 98% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.95454545455 5.21951772744 95% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 15.0 10.2758426966 146% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.212441930753 0.243740707755 87% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0685678816893 0.0831039109588 83% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0357729590574 0.0758088955206 47% => Sentences are similar to each other.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.133403007653 0.150359130593 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0398204481635 0.0667264976115 60% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.8 14.1392134831 112% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.8420337079 81% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.1743820225 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.63 12.1639044944 120% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.13 8.38706741573 109% => OK
difficult_words: 140.0 100.480337079 139% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.8971910112 76% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 79.17 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.75 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.