I understand the viewpoint that governments should not fund scientific research whose consequences are unclear, as it may seem logical to prioritize funding for projects with more immediate and tangible benefits. However, I disagree with this recommendation because it overlooks the inherent nature of scientific inquiry and the potential long-term benefits that can arise from uncertain research outcomes.
Scientific progress often relies on exploration into uncharted territories, where the consequences of research may not be immediately clear. Many groundbreaking discoveries and advancements in various fields have been made precisely because researchers were willing to explore uncertainties and take risks. Funding uncertain research can lead to unexpected breakthroughs and significant societal advancements that would not have been possible otherwise.
Moreover, uncertainties in scientific research are not synonymous with uselessness or lack of direction. Unclear consequences often reflect the complexity and depth of the scientific questions being investigated. By supporting such research, governments foster an environment that encourages curiosity-driven exploration, innovation, and critical thinking. This, in turn, can lead to the development of new technologies, better understanding of natural phenomena, and the advancement of knowledge as a whole.
There are also instances where the consequences of scientific research are uncertain, yet the potential benefits outweigh the risks. Take the field of medical research, for example. In the early stages of drug development, the outcomes and potential side effects of a new treatment may be unclear. However, by funding such research, governments can contribute to the development of life-saving medications, improved treatments, and better healthcare practices.
Additionally, uncertainties in research can arise due to emerging or rapidly evolving fields, such as artificial intelligence, nanotechnology, or quantum computing. Limiting funding to only well-defined research areas could hinder the progress and competitiveness of a nation in these critical technological domains. By investing in uncertain research, governments can position themselves at the forefront of scientific and technological advancements, ensuring their long-term economic growth and global competitiveness.
While it is important for governments to exercise responsible allocation of resources, focusing solely on research with clear and immediate consequences could stifle innovation and limit the potential for groundbreaking discoveries. By maintaining a balance between targeted research and supporting uncertain projects, governments can foster an environment that promotes scientific progress, societal benefits, and long-term growth.
In conclusion, I disagree with the recommendation that governments should not fund scientific research whose consequences are unclear. Embracing uncertainties in research allows for groundbreaking discoveries, encourages innovation, and enables progress in various fields. By investing in uncertain research, governments can contribute to long-term societal advancements, technological breakthroughs, and overall economic growth.
- In any field of enquiry the beginer is more likely than the expert to make important contributions 58
- Some university students want to learn about other subjects in addition to their main subjects Others believe it is important to give all their time and attention to studying for a qualification Discuss both these views and give your own opinion 73
- Government should place few if any restrictions on scientific research and development 62
- Men and women because of their inherent physical differences are not equally suited for many tasks 50
- Teachers salary should be based on the academic performance of the students 66
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, look, may, moreover, so, well, while, for example, in conclusion, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 12.0 19.5258426966 61% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.4196629213 129% => OK
Conjunction : 23.0 14.8657303371 155% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 16.0 33.0505617978 48% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 58.6224719101 87% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 12.9106741573 139% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2811.0 2235.4752809 126% => OK
No of words: 428.0 442.535393258 97% => OK
Chars per words: 6.56775700935 5.05705443957 130% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.548423998 4.55969084622 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.59287378429 2.79657885939 128% => OK
Unique words: 216.0 215.323595506 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.504672897196 0.4932671777 102% => OK
syllable_count: 837.9 704.065955056 119% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 2.0 1.59117977528 126% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 6.24550561798 48% => OK
Article: 1.0 4.99550561798 20% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 8.0 1.77640449438 450% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 8.0 4.38483146067 182% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.6177357015 60.3974514979 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 133.857142857 118.986275619 112% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.380952381 23.4991977007 87% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.61904761905 5.21951772744 88% => OK
Paragraphs: 7.0 4.97078651685 141% => Less paragraphs wanted.
Language errors: 0.0 7.80617977528 0% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 8.0 5.13820224719 156% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.243363099391 0.243740707755 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0890831724066 0.0831039109588 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0814648138364 0.0758088955206 107% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.144933000384 0.150359130593 96% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0574241897039 0.0667264976115 86% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 19.7 14.1392134831 139% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 17.34 48.8420337079 36% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.8 12.1743820225 130% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 20.83 12.1639044944 171% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.87 8.38706741573 118% => OK
difficult_words: 142.0 100.480337079 141% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 11.8971910112 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 10.0 11.7820224719 85% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Maximum six paragraphs wanted.
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.