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 enable a person to comprehend the world he or she lives in. The scientific research and development aims to provide a better lifestyle to the people. To do so they create new gadgets, devices and discover unprecedented theories. Thus if the government puts limitation on the experimentation it also reins back the enhancement of humans way of living. Hence i agree with the claim.

To begin with the scientific research and development is not always unambiguous. The result and implication can highly differ from the expected outcomes. Also every field of science is interrelated and interdependent. As a result if the government restricts the research in one department, it inadvertently limits the development of science in other fields also.Take the case of NASA. The memory foam or scratch resistant lenses are inventions made by NASA. These inventions have become part of the mundane life of the public. If however had the government checked the funds provided to the astronomy department, then these invention wouldn't prevail. The example illustrates that constraining science can have deleterious effects.

Moreover if the government puts restrictions on science, it can have hinder the development of science. The heliocentric theory can exemplify this. Because of the restriction imposed by church, science even the scientist had to suffer. Galileo presented the heliocentric theory based on empirical data ,nevertheless he was condemned by the church. As a result the science couldn't advance. Thus the government should not place any strictures on scientific research and development.

On the contrary though certain impediments are imperative to protect the people. Science which can be a boon can also be a bane for the people if not monitored. Specific areas of science are extremely pernicious .The nuclear power being one instance. The devastation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was egregious. The people are still reeling from the effects from the atom bomb. Even now the land hasn't recovered and contains some radioactivity. Such instances show that it is prudent to control the science research and development.

All things considered, though sometimes it is provident to limit the scientific development, generally curbing the research and progress will have adverse ramifications. Thus the i agree with the issue that governments should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development.