Claim: Researchers should not limit their investigations to only those areas in which they expect to discover something that has an immediate, practical application.
Reason: It is impossible to predict the outcome of a line of research with any certainty.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.
Scientific research seems to consistently be under attack in the United States. People bemoan that it is wasting tax money, or that it is antithetical to religious values, or that it is somehow corrupt and self-interested while simultaneously in thrall to mythical big donors. Because of all of this outside (and sometimes financial) pressure, researchers often understandably either feel the pull to or are forced to limit their work to investigations that will lead to an immediate and practical application. This mindset is understandable – it is easier to get funding and stave off criticism if you have something tangible to show for your work, after all – but ultimately misguided. I agree with the claim that researchers should not limit their investigations to only those areas in which they expect to discover something that has an immediate, practical application, because it is impossible to predict the outcome of a line of research with any certainty.
Let us take my friend Alex as an example. Alex is a Ph.D. candidate in chemistry at an Ivy League institution. He works in a lab that looks at chemical structures in synthetic products. This project was begun because his PI had a hunch there was something to be discovered there, though she wasn’t sure exactly what. After two years of research, this lab discovered that a particular kind of plastic can cause serious diseases, including some without any treatment possibilities. This discovery let to his institution and others pulling products made from this type of plastic from their shelves. They are currently working on a media news blitz about the topic as well. The researchers did not know this information about this type of plastic going into the project, nor did they conduct their investigation specifically to find that result, but that is what they found after years of following one lead after another. Had they been set a strict research agenda, they would not have made this discovery, and people would still be at risk from this type of plastic.
My friend Alex is not the only scientist to have discovered something without a directed research plan. Insulin and penicillin were both discovered while their respective inventors were trying to work on something else, and so was dynamite. Limiting scientific inquiry to discoveries that you think will have an immediate and practical effect is bad not only for the future of society but for intellectual pursuits in general. By forcing scientists to work only on projects that will supposedly lead to positive and practical outcomes, you stifle their creativity, which is bad not only for one particular project but for the rest of their careers. Without the freedom to pursue what the scientists believe is best, their creative and imaginative brain muscles atrophy from overwork, leading to a further narrowing of scientific discovery and discourse. It is a terrible mistake for researchers to limit their investigations to areas that are expected to produce an immediate and practical effect.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2019-11-06 | z.salahshoor | 66 | view |
| 2019-10-17 | luciano.pisa | 66 | view |
| 2019-08-18 | p30kh40 | 66 | view |
| 2019-08-17 | p30kh40 | 75 | view |
| 2019-07-28 | sanket007 | 66 | view |
- Claim: Researchers should not limit their investigations to only those areas in which they expect to discover something that has an immediate, practical application.Reason: It is impossible to predict the outcome of a line of research with any certainty.W 66
- Politicians should pursue common ground and reasonable consensus rather than elusive ideals. 50
- The following appeared in a memorandum from the manager of WWAC radio station."To reverse a decline in listener numbers, our owners have decided that WWAC must change from its current rock-music format. The decline has occurred despite population gro 63
- In any field of endeavor, it is impossible to make a significant contribution without first being strongly influenced by past achievements within that field.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement 50
- Scandals are useful because they focus our attention on problems in ways that no speaker or reformer ever could. Do you agree or disagree? 50
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, if, look, so, still, well, while, after all, in general, kind of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.5258426966 128% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 7.0 12.4196629213 56% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 14.8657303371 141% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 57.0 33.0505617978 172% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 71.0 58.6224719101 121% => 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: 2548.0 2235.4752809 114% => OK
No of words: 496.0 442.535393258 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.13709677419 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.71922212354 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96849788759 2.79657885939 106% => OK
Unique words: 257.0 215.323595506 119% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.51814516129 0.4932671777 105% => OK
syllable_count: 792.9 704.065955056 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 12.0 6.24550561798 192% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 6.0 1.77640449438 338% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.6456495056 60.3974514979 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 127.4 118.986275619 107% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.8 23.4991977007 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.45 5.21951772744 66% => OK
Paragraphs: 3.0 4.97078651685 60% => More paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => 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: 0.396718407177 0.243740707755 163% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.11673565614 0.0831039109588 140% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.191709519248 0.0758088955206 253% => The coherence between sentences is low.
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.28604052481 0.150359130593 190% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.158375885257 0.0667264976115 237% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.2 14.1392134831 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 47.12 48.8420337079 96% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 12.7 12.1743820225 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.83 12.1639044944 105% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.71 8.38706741573 104% => OK
difficult_words: 122.0 100.480337079 121% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 11.8971910112 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 13.0 11.7820224719 110% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Minimum four paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 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.