Most of the money devoted to basic scientific research should instead be diverted to applied scientific research.
Scientific research is crucial for novel discoveries and innovations. Proponents of applied scientific research might argue that more funding should be provided to applied science since it is more practical and possibly more lucrative. However, science should be based on a solid understanding of the world and should not be dominated by the pursuit of profits. Therefore, money should be equally distributed for basic scientific research and applied scientific research.
In recent years, new products such as smart phones and smart watches have revolutionized our lives. Consumers are buying more electronic equipment and brands such as Apple and Samsung have even created their own fan base. Consequently, it seems reasonable for businesses to solely invest in technologies that can attract the attention of consumers. However, this argument is myopic because it overlooks the fact that applied technology is based on basic technology, and without basic technology applied technology would struggle to advance. For example, recently companies have started to offer screens that can bend. If companies focused all their efforts on trying to make screens bend, they are unlikely to succeed because screens have always been rigid and making foldable screens using their current technology is almost impossible. Nevertheless, if companies used a portion of their research and development budget to understand how does photons and light function at an angle, they might discover previously unknown properties of photons and light and increase their changes of making new discoveries that can benefit their applied scientific research. Applied scientific research should be based on a firm foundation of basic scientific research, hence the importance of basic scientific research is not inferior to that of applied scientific research and funding should not be prioritized for applied scientific research.
Advocates of applied scientific research could make a case by arguing that applied scientific research is more lucrative. While this argument appears true, it is flawed because it is based on the assumption that basic scientific research cannot be commercialized. In reality, basic scientific research might have simply not reached a stage that allows it to be monetized. Although applied scientific research is more profitable for now, basic scientific research might be even more lucrative in the future. For example, understanding concepts such as survival of the fittest and natural selection can hardly help anyone make a living, but scientific innovations such as genetically modified organisms are extremely profitable. If scientists who proposed evolution theories ceased to research these theories and instead spent their time and money on applied science, such as a fertilizer that makes plants grow quicker, they would never have the opportunity to create genetically modified organisms. The example of genetically modified organisms demonstrates the importance of basic scientific research. As basic scientific research is performed, knowledge would accumulate over time until another breakthrough discovery, which can be monetized, is made.
In conclusion, applied scientific research should not receive the bulk of funding provided to applied scientific research and basic scientific research. In fact, both applied scientific research and basic scientific research are equally essential as basic scientific research has the potential to be developed into applied scientific research, and it is the foundation that paves the way for new discoveries. Decision-makers should provide funds equally to both types of research to maximize the opportunity of academic success.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2023-08-09 | Mateo Chen | 50 | view |
| 2023-04-24 | Nithin Reddy | 50 | view |
- Tusk University should build a new recreational facility both to attract new students and to better serve the needs of our current student body Tusk projects that enrollment will double over the next 10 years based on current trends The new student body i 66
- The following appeared in an article written by Dr Karp an anthropologist Twenty years ago Dr Field a noted anthropologist visited the island of Tertia and concluded from his observations that children in Tertia were reared by an entire village rather tha 66
- Progress should be the aim of any great society People too often cling unnecessarily to obsolete ways of thinking and acting because they enjoy feeling comfortable and fear the unknown 47
- Scientific theories which most people consider as fact almost invariably prove to be inaccurate Thus one should look upon any information described as factual with skepticism since it may well be proven false in the future Write an essay in which you take 83
- The commercial airline industry in the country of Freedonia has experienced impressive growth in the past three years This trend will surely continue in the years to come since the airline industry will benefit from recent changes in Freedonian society in 70
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 530, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ze the opportunity of academic success.
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, hence, however, if, look, nevertheless, so, therefore, while, for example, in conclusion, in fact, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.5258426966 149% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 22.0 12.4196629213 177% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 14.8657303371 141% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 33.0505617978 97% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 58.6224719101 89% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 12.9106741573 139% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3153.0 2235.4752809 141% => OK
No of words: 547.0 442.535393258 124% => OK
Chars per words: 5.76416819013 5.05705443957 114% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.83611736076 4.55969084622 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.98185128555 2.79657885939 107% => OK
Unique words: 242.0 215.323595506 112% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.442413162706 0.4932671777 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 952.2 704.065955056 135% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.2370786517 114% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 67.0251201392 60.3974514979 111% => OK
Chars per sentence: 137.086956522 118.986275619 115% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.7826086957 23.4991977007 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.4347826087 5.21951772744 104% => OK
Paragraphs: 4.0 4.97078651685 80% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.601751390321 0.243740707755 247% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.231770610391 0.0831039109588 279% => Sentence topic similarity is high.
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.20429707999 0.0758088955206 269% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.477646889682 0.150359130593 318% => Maybe some contents are duplicated.
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0904290715757 0.0667264976115 136% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.6 14.1392134831 124% => 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: 16.42 12.1639044944 135% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.88 8.38706741573 106% => OK
difficult_words: 142.0 100.480337079 141% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Better to have 5/6 paragraphs with 3/4 arguments. And try always support/against one side but compare two sides, like this:
para 1: introduction
para 2: reason 1. address both of the views presented for reason 1
para 3: reason 2. address both of the views presented for reason 2
para 4: reason 3. address both of the views presented for reason 3
para 5: reason 4. address both of the views presented for reason 4 (optional)
para 6: conclusion.
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.