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 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 raises a controversial issue of government funding for scientific research. Indisputably, any government should investigate the potential benefits and downsides of projects they invest in. However, it is challenging to predict the consequences of a research project at an early stage. Then, such a policy may cut funding from many potentially valuable scientific projects, which is unlikely a desired outcome. Thus, I would argue that we shouldn’t take budget from 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. Scientists may have some predictions of the result, but the outcome is typically different from what is anticipated, which is usual in science. Thus, adopting such a criterion for funding research will result in almost all potential scientific projects losing 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 research outcomes.
Furthermore, suppose we apply the recommendation of funding only scientific research with predictable consequences. In that case, we will likely end up in a 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 analysis that dives into the basics of our world and deals with the unknown the most will be underinvested, although it has the highest potential for valuable discoveries. For example, most modern technologies come from fundamental physics research that 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 rapid development now.
However, one could admit that the proposed policy has its benefits, namely cutting expenses on projects with questionable goals and outcomes. For example, there was a big interest in extrasensory research in the second half of the twentieth century. Many pseudo-sciences investigated the paranormal abilities of people. They gained government grants in countries like the USA or the USSR which wanted to use that research to win the Cold War. That research was useless, but it consumed a lot of budget money. Such a policy could’ve prevented those spending. Nevertheless, the approach 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 the policy of funding scientific projects based on the predictability of their findings seems a good idea, we should be skeptical about it as it will cut funds from a lot of potentially valuable projects along with inefficient projects. If anything, we should 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 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
- 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 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
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 227, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'predicting'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'challenge' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: predicting
...y invest in. However, it is challenging to predict the consequences of a research project ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 667, 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 : 12.0 19.5258426966 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 14.8657303371 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 14.0 11.3162921348 124% => OK
Pronoun: 37.0 33.0505617978 112% => OK
Preposition: 67.0 58.6224719101 114% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 12.9106741573 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2681.0 2235.4752809 120% => OK
No of words: 485.0 442.535393258 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.52783505155 5.05705443957 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69283662038 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.11008494009 2.79657885939 111% => OK
Unique words: 253.0 215.323595506 117% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.521649484536 0.4932671777 106% => OK
syllable_count: 811.8 704.065955056 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 6.24550561798 176% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => 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: 24.0 20.2370786517 119% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.6835016544 60.3974514979 81% => OK
Chars per sentence: 111.708333333 118.986275619 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.2083333333 23.4991977007 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.54166666667 5.21951772744 87% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 16.0 10.2758426966 156% => 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: 0.216897725159 0.243740707755 89% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0685258665524 0.0831039109588 82% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0398045270103 0.0758088955206 53% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.137357741208 0.150359130593 91% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0336567023733 0.0667264976115 50% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.7 14.1392134831 104% => 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: 14.79 12.1639044944 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.99 8.38706741573 107% => OK
difficult_words: 134.0 100.480337079 133% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.8971910112 76% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => 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.