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.
In countries where science has thrived, one of the most important elements is the lack of restriction of what scientists should or should not investigate. In fact, scientific progress needs to be driven by the freedom of choice and by what, sometimes, some people pejoratively call “knowledge for knowledge”. Of course that with limited human and financial resources some choices need to be made and, in this process, choosing to prioritize discoveries that has an immediate and practical application can seem like a good choice. However, there are several reasons why this is misleading and would have negative impacts in the scientific field and, consequently, in the well-being of society as well.
First of all, the scientific progress and scientific method does not allow to anticipate all the results. Many scientific discoveries were made by accident. Take for instance the discovery of penicillin that was a complete revolution for the health field. The discovery was made by pure serendipity: the anecdote tells that Fleming was on vacation and some fungus grew in an early experiment that he was conducting about something else. When he returned, he realised that the bacteria around this fungus were all dead. It is valid to note that the original research was not related to an immediate impact, but it was more exploratory research. Now, imagine if Fleming hadn’t started the original research because he did not expected to discover something with immediate application. We would not have antibiotics in our world!
The anecdote of penicillin is an illustration of why science and scientific progress shouldn’t be focused only in immediate and practical applications of their discoveries. Moreover, a corollary of this choice can be to prioritize small accomplishments, instead of focusing on more universal and broad discoveries. In addition, this prioritization does not take into account the peculiarities of the scientific field that, by nature, are imbedded of uncertainties.
Last but not least, how would researchers decide what is an immediate application? And for what purpose? Would the requirement only be that is immediate or some degree of quality would matter as well? In other words, the ethical question behind is if for a society would it be better to invest in a scientific research capable of discovering the cancer cure in the long run or would it be better investing in a more commercial and immediate discovery, such as a new wireless control remote. I argue that the first option is better for the well-being of a society and that the idea of only investing in immediate results, can be harmful in the long run.
In conclusion, I argue that science should be free to invest in any kind of research, especially for two main reasons, The first is that the scientific method is full of uncertainties and history is a testimony of examples of discoveries made by accident. Secondly, the focus in immediate results would narrow the possibilities of reaching to more important results, that inevitably require more time for achieving practical results.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 76, Rule ID: ALLOW_TO[1]
Message: Did you mean 'anticipating'? Or maybe you should add a pronoun? In active voice, 'allow' + 'to' takes an object, usually a pronoun.
Suggestion: anticipating
...ss and scientific method does not allow to anticipate all the results. Many scientific discov...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 730, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'did' requires the base form of the verb: 'expect'
Suggestion: expect
...he original research because he did not expected to discover something with immediate ap...
^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 833, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ould not have antibiotics in our world! The anecdote of penicillin is an illustr...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, consequently, first, however, if, moreover, second, secondly, so, well, for instance, in addition, in conclusion, in fact, kind of, of course, such as, first of all, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 32.0 19.5258426966 164% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 20.0 14.8657303371 135% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.3162921348 141% => OK
Pronoun: 32.0 33.0505617978 97% => OK
Preposition: 68.0 58.6224719101 116% => OK
Nominalization: 16.0 12.9106741573 124% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2627.0 2235.4752809 118% => OK
No of words: 500.0 442.535393258 113% => OK
Chars per words: 5.254 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72870804502 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.1292171545 2.79657885939 112% => OK
Unique words: 239.0 215.323595506 111% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.478 0.4932671777 97% => OK
syllable_count: 826.2 704.065955056 117% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.77640449438 113% => OK
Preposition: 10.0 4.38483146067 228% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 21.0 20.2370786517 104% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 64.7548315465 60.3974514979 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 125.095238095 118.986275619 105% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.8095238095 23.4991977007 101% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.80952380952 5.21951772744 169% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => 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: 0.131939966706 0.243740707755 54% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0420611598113 0.0831039109588 51% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0503266508942 0.0758088955206 66% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0734161625123 0.150359130593 49% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0196706297749 0.0667264976115 29% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.2 14.1392134831 108% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 39.67 48.8420337079 81% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.1743820225 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.47 12.1639044944 111% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.41 8.38706741573 100% => OK
difficult_words: 115.0 100.480337079 114% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 15.0 11.7820224719 127% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.