Scientists and other researchers should focus their research that are likely to benefit the greatest number of people.
Science and technology is the corner stone of modern life. Scientists and researchers have totally changed our world through innovation. Nevertheless, the results can not be selected as criteria. The reversed logic, that scientists and other researchers should concentrate their effort on research benefiting the great number of people, is biased and unreasonable.
Firstly, science has its own law of development, no matter how much value of the research to most people. Especially in theoretical sciences, an improvement or extension of an equation might be no use to the interest of the greatest number of people, but it is meaningful for the field to complete its logic. Sometimes, raising the precision of an instrument seems no difference for the public, but it is important for the researchers to diminish the error. Those parts of research, which seems trivial to the greatest number of people, sometimes need scientists to contribute their life-long effort to solve.
Secondly, it is impossible to precisely predict the value of research. The research of Mendel was recognized decades later for its value to reveal the secret of inheritance. Turing machine was just a simple model, but the idea behind it opened an era of computer science. For many greatest discoveries, people at their time were often unable to truly understand the value of the research. Sometimes, it is even difficult to judge whether it is beneficial or not. For example, people initially studied opium for medical use to diminish pain. On the contrary, the issue of drug abuse create much more pain, not to mention it even evoked wars in human history. Therefore, the great uncertainty of scientific research determines that the standard of benefits to most people is basically invalid.
Admittedly, the utility of greatest number of people should be a top priority in a society. The topics related to our biggest concerns should get enough support. Therefore, it is indisputable for government to lean more on those topics financially. However, unlike many occupations, research needs creativity and interest as its fuel. As for scientists and researchers, the free will in study is their key component to conduct successful research. Unless violating laws or research ethnics, researchers should put their research interest above any other consideration. Otherwise, the quality control standard of calculating benefits would only transform a creative scientific community into a dull assembly line.
In conclusion, we should encourage scientists and researchers to solve the troubles we have. Meanwhile, we should respect the own nature of science and scholars’ research interest. Their free will can not be limited, except by law and research ethic. Government and industry should more actively take the responsibility to turn knowledge into productivity, instead of putting the pressure on scientists and researchers.
| Post date | Users | Rates | Link to Content |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2021-07-22 | Anirudha Balaji Shirsikar | 58 | view |
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 520, Rule ID: USE_TO_VERB[1]
Message: Did you mean 'used'?
Suggestion: used
...ple initially studied opium for medical use to diminish pain. On the contrary, the ...
^^^
Line 7, column 25, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[2]
Message: A determiner is probably missing here: 'of the greatest'.
Suggestion: of the greatest
...lly invalid. Admittedly, the utility of greatest number of people should be a top priori...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['but', 'first', 'firstly', 'however', 'if', 'nevertheless', 'second', 'secondly', 'so', 'therefore', 'while', 'as for', 'for example', 'in conclusion', 'on the contrary']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.270058708415 0.240241500013 112% => OK
Verbs: 0.117416829746 0.157235817809 75% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0900195694716 0.0880659088768 102% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0665362035225 0.0497285424764 134% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0450097847358 0.0444667217837 101% => OK
Prepositions: 0.111545988258 0.12292977631 91% => OK
Participles: 0.0234833659491 0.0406280797675 58% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.01983583799 2.79330140395 108% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0371819960861 0.030933414821 120% => OK
Particles: 0.0 0.0016655270985 0% => OK
Determiners: 0.0880626223092 0.0997080785238 88% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0254403131115 0.0249443105267 102% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.00391389432485 0.0148568991511 26% => Some subClauses wanted starting by 'Which, Who, What, Whom, Whose.....'
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 2916.0 2732.02544248 107% => OK
No of words: 454.0 452.878318584 100% => OK
Chars per words: 6.42290748899 6.0361032391 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.61598047577 4.58838876751 101% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.440528634361 0.366273622748 120% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.343612334802 0.280924506359 122% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.277533039648 0.200843997647 138% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.178414096916 0.132149295362 135% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01983583799 2.79330140395 108% => OK
Unique words: 241.0 219.290929204 110% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.530837004405 0.48968727796 108% => OK
Word variations: 62.1136821347 55.4138127331 112% => OK
How many sentences: 27.0 20.6194690265 131% => OK
Sentence length: 16.8148148148 23.380412469 72% => OK
Sentence length SD: 36.7819735774 59.4972553346 62% => OK
Chars per sentence: 108.0 141.124799967 77% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.8148148148 23.380412469 72% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.555555555556 0.674092028746 82% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.94800884956 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.21349557522 38% => OK
Readability: 51.176048295 51.4728631049 99% => OK
Elegance: 1.76923076923 1.64882698954 107% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.490632742467 0.391690518653 125% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.093706462398 0.123202303941 76% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0821772898041 0.077325440228 106% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.49318189737 0.547984918172 90% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.149985981247 0.149214159877 101% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.171718997054 0.161403998019 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.101919072119 0.0892212321368 114% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.43872968223 0.385218514788 114% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.130301353487 0.0692045440612 188% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.350865542894 0.275328986314 127% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0369789284847 0.0653680567796 57% => OK
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 19.0 10.4325221239 182% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.30420353982 75% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.88274336283 82% => OK
Positive topic words: 14.0 7.22455752212 194% => OK
Negative topic words: 4.0 3.66592920354 109% => OK
Neutral topic words: 3.0 2.70907079646 111% => OK
Total topic words: 21.0 13.5995575221 154% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.