Governments should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development.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 deve

Science continues to innovate to discover new concepts or products that can revolutionize civilization. However, the research and development projects are usually funded by the government; as a result, these projects proceed under the approval of the government. In the case where the government enacts restrictions that relate to one’s project, it’s a hint to stop the project; going against the government will impact research funding they receive. This begs the question: should the government be given the authority to place restrictions on scientific research and development? This must be scrutinized before concluding.

First, the people should have a say to tell the government what the scientific community can or cannot do. Funding the scientific community receives comes from taxpayer money. The scientific community should be researching in areas that the people want to see progress in. Recent discovery of genetically modify organism using CRISPR has led to a new variety of potential applications, but one can caught the most controversy: genetically modified babies. The ability to genetically modify babies exciting to scientists: genetic diseases would cease to exist and parents can choose what’s best for the baby’s future. However, the general population isn’t keen: they are more concerned about the immediate harm that good. As a result, the government and the world has heavily restricted research on human cells since it can seriously impact the life of the to-be child if done incorrectly.

However, this type of majority driven democracy has also led to governmental restrictions in scientific fields that are of great potential for groundbreaking research. Weed was an interest in the 1950s for its variety of biochemical compounds with unknown potential. However, after the war against drugs in the 1960s, weed has always been the “gate way drug.” The societal perception of the weed plant caused the government to restrict all research on this plant. Restriction on the research of weed has laxed recently, and a lot of molecules found in the plant have been studied and can be used to combat a variety of medical conditions. Scientific research on this plant for over 60 years most likely have yielded new drugs that could have saved countless of lives had weed not been portrayed in such a bad way.

However, such scientific research and development can be a high-risk occupation. The government should have the right to restrict such projects if they are a threat to the nation. After the eradication of smallpox, scientists were still curious about the virus. Despite the lack of a need to continue in further research of an eradicated virus, research groups continued. However, certain accidents lead to smallpox infections throughout the research members, and its threat to national safety was very high. The government required termination of all research into smallpox. This prevented the risk of reintroducing the virus into the world and render the eradication project ineffective.

Overall, the government should have a say in scientific research and development based on the people’s say. On the contrary, people’s biased views could also be what’s impeding the progression that could benefit the general population. However, the government should be a check on the scientific community to ensure safety throughout the population. It’s difficult to say for certain whether governmental restrictions do more good or harm, but the research should be in align of what’s best for the people.