Government should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear.
Is it necessary for any research project to have a well-defined outcome for it to get government funding? The answer to this question is debatable. Admittedly, it does not seem a rational decision at the first glance, to provide funding for scientific research unless it has the potential to find something new. However, the outcome of a research project can never be predicted with certainty. Does this mean that government should not provide funding at all? In my opinion, the feasibility of an innovative idea weighs more than the guarantee to achieve the claimed results, for the scientific research project to be considered good enough for the funding.
Most modern scientific research projects are goal-oriented. Scientists need to go through a comprehensive literature review before presenting an idea for funding. It is only when they can show the feasibility of their idea, and the possibility for innovation can they attract funds. Nonetheless, scientific research outcomes are affected by a number of factors, and any amount of literature review cannot guarantee the results. Tech start-ups prevalent around the world are the perfect example of this. Most of the leading governments are providing funding for such start-up projects trying to innovate a ground-breaking technology. Do they all succeed? Obviously, not. This shows that the potential of the idea to solve a widespread problem is more important than the certainty of its results, to get the funding.
Moreover, history is replete with examples of accidental discoveries. For instance, Fleming's discovery of penicillin, Rontgen's discovery of X-rays, etc. These are examples of research where the outcome was completely unexpected, yet these discoveries are considered the basis for modern medical science. Similarly, the government should not reject a research project's funding proposal only because the results are not clear at the time.
Although one cannot deny that there are more important concerns that deserve government funding than scientific research with uncertain outcomes. For example, the government of a nation suffering from a high percentage of unemployment, poverty, etc. cannot and should not provide funding for such scientific research. Therefore, it's up to the leaders of the nation to decide whether to provide funding or not considering all these factors.
In conclusion, rejecting a funding proposal for scientific research is not a fair choice unless there are other reasons. It is one of the responsibilities of the government to lead the nation to become independent and self-sufficient technology-wise. Yet the final decision should be based on the number of factors affecting the development of the country from all aspects.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 349, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[1]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'research'.
Suggestion: research
...larly, the government should not reject a research projects funding proposal only because ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “Although” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...e results are not clear at the time. Although one cannot deny that there are more imp...
^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 330, Rule ID: IT_IS[6]
Message: Did you mean 'it's' (='it is') instead of 'its' (possessive pronoun)?
Suggestion: it's; it is
...or such scientific research. Therefore, its up to the leaders of the nation to deci...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, however, if, moreover, nonetheless, similarly, so, therefore, well, for example, for instance, in conclusion, in my opinion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.5258426966 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 11.0 12.4196629213 89% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 14.8657303371 47% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 6.0 11.3162921348 53% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 24.0 33.0505617978 73% => OK
Preposition: 54.0 58.6224719101 92% => OK
Nominalization: 12.0 12.9106741573 93% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2317.0 2235.4752809 104% => OK
No of words: 423.0 442.535393258 96% => OK
Chars per words: 5.47754137116 5.05705443957 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.53508145475 4.55969084622 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.10349942268 2.79657885939 111% => OK
Unique words: 206.0 215.323595506 96% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.486997635934 0.4932671777 99% => OK
syllable_count: 712.8 704.065955056 101% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.2370786517 124% => OK
Sentence length: 16.0 23.0359550562 69% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.5265680956 60.3974514979 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 92.68 118.986275619 78% => OK
Words per sentence: 16.92 23.4991977007 72% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.2 5.21951772744 100% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 11.0 10.2758426966 107% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 11.0 4.83258426966 228% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.284859269099 0.243740707755 117% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0856673199566 0.0831039109588 103% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0887948342595 0.0758088955206 117% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.184165900116 0.150359130593 122% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0592618090582 0.0667264976115 89% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 12.8 14.1392134831 91% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 46.78 48.8420337079 96% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.1743820225 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.21 12.1639044944 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.42 8.38706741573 100% => OK
difficult_words: 107.0 100.480337079 106% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.4 11.2143820225 75% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 50.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.0 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.