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 developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
Restrictions on scientific research is certainly a hot topic. Given the ever growing possibilities that science and technology offer us, it is impossible that controversy regarding whether science should be constrained by laws does not come up. It is true that in some promising cases, such as stem cell research, too conservative governments have hindered progress; however, these are just anecdotic when compared to the many times uncontrolled scientists have provoked great trouble.
First of all, there are many examples where unrestrained scientists have acted in unethical ways, leading to some of the most horrendous events in human history. World War II is one terrible but important example; millions of people were subject to cruel experiments, such as direct administration of gasoline into their hearts. Moreover, the Tuskegee experiment was another ethics-lacking study, in which a community of Afroamerican people was administered heavy metal based drugs to treat syphilis; this would be a scandal on its own, due to its racist connotations and the flagrant violation of the principle primun non nocere that should be the main rule to be followed by every researcher, but is further aggravated by the fact than penicillin, an innocuous and effective treatment for the disease, had already been discovered.
Furthermore, scientific research comes at a great cost in both money and jobs. It is certainly hard to justify the expenditure of thousands of millions of dollars on the Large Hadron Collider when there are starving communities in the third world that could use all that money to greatly improve their living conditions. Is it really a priority to discover an infinitesimally small particle just for the sake of it, and not to feed every hungry child? Those funds that are used in paradoxically deep, but pragmatically superfluous, research should definitively be better spent.
In addition, it is also important to note that scientists, even if sometimes regarded as the acumen of society, as impartial, wisdom seekers, can also be moved by their own selfish interests. In many cases scientific articles have been removed from journals because they have been shown to be false fabricated, only submitted in order to gaining fame in the scientific community. Bearing this in mind, that scientists are also human and subject to the same perversions as every other layman, they should never be left uncontrolled.
However, there are some examples where an overly tight legislation has proved to be a hurdle to scientific research. Stem cell research might be the most widely known case in which this has happened; too much control has lead to an underdevelopment of a potentially paradigm changing technology.
In conclusion, it is true that sometimes science would work better if left on its own. However, the myriad of times where scientists have been proven to be unreliable, unethical and all in all, deeply human, should be enough to never let them fully unleashed, as they might wreak havoc.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 8, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...hey should never be left uncontrolled. However, there are some examples where a...
^^^
Line 9, column 253, Rule ID: A_RB_NN[1]
Message: You used an adverb ('potentially') instead an adjective, or a noun ('paradigm') instead of another adjective.
...trol has lead to an underdevelopment of a potentially paradigm changing technology. In conclusion, ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'first', 'furthermore', 'however', 'if', 'moreover', 'really', 'regarding', 'so', 'third', 'in addition', 'in conclusion', 'such as', 'first of all', 'in many cases', 'it is true']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.206703910615 0.240241500013 86% => OK
Verbs: 0.173184357542 0.157235817809 110% => OK
Adjectives: 0.115456238361 0.0880659088768 131% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0763500931099 0.0497285424764 154% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0335195530726 0.0444667217837 75% => OK
Prepositions: 0.106145251397 0.12292977631 86% => OK
Participles: 0.0670391061453 0.0406280797675 165% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.01096509419 2.79330140395 108% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0353817504655 0.030933414821 114% => OK
Particles: 0.00186219739292 0.0016655270985 112% => OK
Determiners: 0.0856610800745 0.0997080785238 86% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0204841713222 0.0249443105267 82% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0186219739292 0.0148568991511 125% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3033.0 2732.02544248 111% => OK
No of words: 484.0 452.878318584 107% => OK
Chars per words: 6.26652892562 6.0361032391 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69041575982 4.58838876751 102% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.359504132231 0.366273622748 98% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.287190082645 0.280924506359 102% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.237603305785 0.200843997647 118% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.165289256198 0.132149295362 125% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01096509419 2.79330140395 108% => OK
Unique words: 276.0 219.290929204 126% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.570247933884 0.48968727796 116% => OK
Word variations: 71.0883684047 55.4138127331 128% => OK
How many sentences: 17.0 20.6194690265 82% => OK
Sentence length: 28.4705882353 23.380412469 122% => OK
Sentence length SD: 95.9490926153 59.4972553346 161% => OK
Chars per sentence: 178.411764706 141.124799967 126% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.4705882353 23.380412469 122% => OK
Discourse Markers: 1.0 0.674092028746 148% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.94800884956 121% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 5.21349557522 38% => OK
Readability: 57.1895964998 51.4728631049 111% => OK
Elegance: 1.34210526316 1.64882698954 81% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.271221390683 0.391690518653 69% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.0694446784554 0.123202303941 56% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.054689872618 0.077325440228 71% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.561129497787 0.547984918172 102% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.158747853598 0.149214159877 106% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.109551738246 0.161403998019 68% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0465730915959 0.0892212321368 52% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.253224462821 0.385218514788 66% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0868664833102 0.0692045440612 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.171140192251 0.275328986314 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0342549863991 0.0653680567796 52% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.4325221239 86% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.30420353982 94% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.88274336283 61% => OK
Positive topic words: 7.0 7.22455752212 97% => OK
Negative topic words: 5.0 3.66592920354 136% => OK
Neutral topic words: 1.0 2.70907079646 37% => OK
Total topic words: 13.0 13.5995575221 96% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 75.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.5 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: This is not the final score. 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.