Claim: Researchers should not limit their investigations to only those areas in which they expect to discover something that has an immediate, practical application.
Reason: It is impossible to predict the outcome of a line of research with any certainty.
The statement claims that researchers must not confine their investigation to only those areas in which they anticipate a discovery with immediate and practical application for the reason that predicting the outcome of any line of research with certainty is impossible. While, in any field of enquiry predicting the final outcomes and the resulting benefits for humanity is hard, thereby justifying the claim; however, researchers must also endeavour to solve pressing problems apart from pursuing long term research goals.
Scientific research can be broadly categorized as ‘fundamental’ and ‘applied. The former, often long term, aims to unravel the mysteries of the universe and human existence; whereas the latter aims to use existing knowledge to tackle well-defined problems with immediate and practical effect. Admittedly, both the recommendation and the given reason find support in some historical examples. For example, no one could have predicted that the invention of gun powder would stem from the explosion of an ‘alchemy’ lab in medieval China. Similarly, that Fleming’s pondering on the staphylococci culture would pave way for the discovery of penicillin, thus revolutionizing modern medicine was unthinkable. However, modern research mostly functions with expected outcomes and the reason presented cannot be a solid justification alone.
Yet the recommendation holds merit in the fact that ‘applied’ research itself feeds on ‘fundamental’ one. It is simply not possible to discover or invent something having immediate practical application without exploiting the vast knowledge resource generated through decades and centuries of rigorous research. For example, to discover the vaccine for the current COVID-19 pandemic which threatens millions of lives, researchers were not only required to find the structure of the virus but also had to rely on the past knowledge of virology. Both the current research on novel corona virus structure as well as the past findings on virology may seem impractical without considering their ultimate aim and utilities. Similarly, the end rewards from the knowledge generated by the discoveries on atomic structure, DNA, photoelectric effect, etc. could only become visible after those were already done.
However, scientific research is time consuming and costly. The cost is generally borne by the tax-paying public who then are entitled to reap immediate rewards of scientific discoveries. Given the limited time and resources that researchers have, complete dependence and focus on new knowledge generation and long term research goals instead of using existing knowledge to address contemporary challenges is detrimental and unjust. For example, when the world is engulfed in the crisis of global warming, depletion of fossil fuel resources and increased energy consumption, a heavy research focus on extra terrestrial life is unjustifiable.
Moreover, if researchers ignore the immediate problems such as climate change, global pandemics, etc., the irreversible damage to earth and the life within will be too heavy to be compensated by any future scientific accomplishment. Therefore, a pragmatic way to follow the recommendation would be to balance the focus between ‘fundamental’ and ‘applied’ research. Moreover, the priority in applied research must be based on the hierarchy of human needs as outlaid by Maslow as well as on the demand of the hour.
In conclusion, both the unpredictable nature of research and the dependent nature of applied research on fundamental one justify the author’s recommendation. However, it would be unwise to completely shift focus away from research addressing immediate pressing issues of the society due to both the obligation towards the research funding public as well as the consequences of ignoring such threats.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 526, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...from pursuing long term research goals. Scientific research can be broadly categ...
^^^^^
Line 3, column 393, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...nd support in some historical examples. For example, no one could have predicted...
^^^
Line 5, column 603, Rule ID: BOTH_AS_WELL_AS[1]
Message: Probable usage error. Use 'and' after 'both'.
Suggestion: and
...esearch on novel corona virus structure as well as the past findings on virology may seem ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 904, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... visible after those were already done. However, scientific research is time con...
^^^^^
Line 11, column 347, Rule ID: BOTH_AS_WELL_AS[1]
Message: Probable usage error. Use 'and' after 'both'.
Suggestion: and
...ion towards the research funding public as well as the consequences of ignoring such threa...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, may, moreover, similarly, so, then, therefore, thus, well, whereas, while, apart from, for example, in conclusion, such as, as well as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 19.5258426966 97% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 13.0 12.4196629213 105% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 14.8657303371 141% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 14.0 33.0505617978 42% => OK
Preposition: 78.0 58.6224719101 133% => OK
Nominalization: 18.0 12.9106741573 139% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3287.0 2235.4752809 147% => OK
No of words: 575.0 442.535393258 130% => OK
Chars per words: 5.71652173913 5.05705443957 113% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.89685180668 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.1996625531 2.79657885939 114% => OK
Unique words: 303.0 215.323595506 141% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.526956521739 0.4932671777 107% => OK
syllable_count: 1013.4 704.065955056 144% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 6.24550561798 48% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.99550561798 160% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.2370786517 114% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 61.9329779828 60.3974514979 103% => OK
Chars per sentence: 142.913043478 118.986275619 120% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.0 23.4991977007 106% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.86956521739 5.21951772744 132% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 9.0 10.2758426966 88% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 9.0 5.13820224719 175% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.367002532215 0.243740707755 151% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0971816280614 0.0831039109588 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.119460451475 0.0758088955206 158% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.18969289416 0.150359130593 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.131230870623 0.0667264976115 197% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 18.0 14.1392134831 127% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 29.18 48.8420337079 60% => Flesch_reading_ease is low.
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 15.4 12.1743820225 126% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 16.19 12.1639044944 133% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.79 8.38706741573 117% => OK
difficult_words: 179.0 100.480337079 178% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.7820224719 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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.