Scientists and other researchers should focus their research on areas that are likely to benefit the greatest number of people.
The recommendation that researchers must focus their research on areas that are likely to benefit the masses has an underlying assumption that not all scientific areas or research are beneficial for the society. However, the assertion holds merit in the sense that the ultimate aim of scientific research should not be knowledge generation but must be extended to benefit humanity in particular and the world in general.
Scientific research can be broadly categorized as ‘pure’ and ‘applied’. The former aims to unravel the mysteries and generate knowledge without any pre-defined ultimate application whereas the latter attempts to use existing principles and knowledge to develop solutions for well-defined problems much for the benefits of the masses. The recommendation fails to consider not only the fact that applied research itself feeds on the pure or fundamental research but also the unpredictable nature of the potential application of the latter. No one could have predicted that Newton’s pondering on ‘the fall of an apple’ would ultimately pave way for launching satellites into outer orbits and thus laying the foundation of modern communication benefitting the entire global populace. Similarly, the end rewards for understanding the atomic structures, photoelectric effect, DNA, etc. could only become visible after those discoveries were already done. Thus, research areas which are apparently not beneficial for the society today may prove useful in the end.
However, scientific research is costly, and generally that cost is borne by the tax-paying public, who then must be entitled to reap the benefits of scientific discoveries. Given the limited resources and time that researchers have to deal with the issues that threaten the very human existence, complete dependence on fundamental research areas and new knowledge generation rather than using the present knowledge to address these challenges might prove costly. For example, when the world is facing the crisis of fossil fuel depletion, increased energy consumption and global warming, a heavy research focus on extra terrestrial life cannot be justified.
Moreover, the focus of applied research should not be limited to the interest of few elites or states but must be oriented towards the benefits of a greater general populace. For example, when millions are suffering from serious diseases, lack of access to clean water, poisonous air, etc., enormous spending on developing modern weapons is in fact cruel. Moreover, research that caters for the need of the people will ultimately benefit others forms of life in this symbiotic world where every species is dependent on the other for their survival. For instance, efforts to curb water pollution will help preserve aquatic life and by extension the food resource for the coastal population. A pragmatic way to follow the recommendation would be to establish a balance between research funding for pure and applied research. The allocation of research funding for the latter must then be based on the hierarchy of needs as laid-out by Maslow and the principle that every human is entitled to have his needs or problems addressed.
In conclusion, the recommendation though appears to trivialize the importance of pure scientific research, it is indeed true in asserting, as Bill Gate points out, that ‘humanity’s greatest advancement are not in its discoveries - but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity’.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 1093, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...iety today may prove useful in the end. However, scientific research is costly, ...
^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 309, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...s are applied to reduce inequity'.
^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, but, however, if, may, moreover, similarly, so, then, thus, well, whereas, for example, for instance, in conclusion, in fact, in general, in particular
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.5258426966 118% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 18.0 12.4196629213 145% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 14.8657303371 135% => OK
Relative clauses : 17.0 11.3162921348 150% => OK
Pronoun: 22.0 33.0505617978 67% => OK
Preposition: 63.0 58.6224719101 107% => OK
Nominalization: 23.0 12.9106741573 178% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2994.0 2235.4752809 134% => OK
No of words: 538.0 442.535393258 122% => OK
Chars per words: 5.56505576208 5.05705443957 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.81610080973 4.55969084622 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.1306547071 2.79657885939 112% => OK
Unique words: 288.0 215.323595506 134% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.53531598513 0.4932671777 109% => OK
syllable_count: 926.1 704.065955056 132% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 6.24550561798 32% => OK
Article: 11.0 4.99550561798 220% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.38483146067 23% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 28.0 23.0359550562 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 64.7394522366 60.3974514979 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 157.578947368 118.986275619 132% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.3157894737 23.4991977007 120% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.89473684211 5.21951772744 170% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => 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: 0.285861880056 0.243740707755 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.097040347007 0.0831039109588 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0966264512138 0.0758088955206 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.181873565917 0.150359130593 121% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.100843655252 0.0667264976115 151% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.0 14.1392134831 134% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 34.6 48.8420337079 71% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 12.1743820225 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.32 12.1639044944 126% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.78 8.38706741573 117% => OK
difficult_words: 162.0 100.480337079 161% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 11.8971910112 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.2143820225 118% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.7820224719 127% => 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.