Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear.Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should

Essay topics:

Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear.

Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider the possible consequences of implementing the policy and explain how these consequences shape your position.

Should government abstain from funding researches whose aftermaths are unclear? From one side this idea seems to be reasonable due to the fact that government spends tax-payers’ money and they should not be wasted; however, implementation of this policy will have a drastic negative impact on development of our scientific knowledge. Therefore, my stance is that government ought to give money to researchers which results are unclear.

First of all, government's money is money of tax-payers. Moreover, this amount is limited and should be shared for many purposes from defense to healthcare. From this viewpoint it seems to be reasonable to know the result of researches which government is going to fund. If this money does not bring useful results, perhaps, they should be spent in other field. Although this position is reasonable, it has a limited outlook on the problem.

First of all, a scientific research, by definition, tries to find or prove something which is unknown and thus in some degree the results of any scientific research are always uncertain. Moreover, than more fundamental knowledge an experiment may bring than less predictable the result of it. For instance, we may look at creation of the first atomic bomb as at a huge scientific experiment. Although physicists had some theories about the nuclear reaction, they were not sure about the result of the study. It might have not brought any results at all, or caused a great catastrophe. However, this study has allowed the humankind to begin to use the energy of atom initially for military purposes and then for civil ones as well.

Consequently, refrain to fund any scientific research whose results are unclear seems to be mistaken and the implementation of this policy will hurt development of science and mankind as well. To illustrate an idea, modern scientists try to figure out more about the solar system. Tens and hundreds of millions of dollars are spent world-wide on creation of automations which will be lunched into space in order to bring more information about other planets, their structure, characteristics etc. At the same time, the results of this work are unclear, these automatic stations may not work properly and results of their future work are unclear. If the proposed policy were implemented such projects should be not funded. In other words, our scientific research would be highly restricted and our celerity of development has dropped dramatically.

In conclusion, although at first glance it seems reasonable to avoid give government's money on researchers whose aftermaths are unclear, this policy would have a dramatic negative impact on our development.

Votes
Average: 5 (2 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:

Comments

a drastic negative impact on development of our scientific knowledge.
a drastic negative impact on the development of our scientific knowledge.

flaws:
Wrong essay structure. why you got two 'First of all,' in one essay. and the first paragraph and the second paragraph are duplicated. If you remove one of them, it is still a complete essay.

you may use the following structure which is easier to develop. Simply give three reasons to support, and in the fourth paragraph (the third reason), take consideration of the opposite ideas:

para 1: introduction. I support side A.
para 2: reason 1 for side A
para 3: reason 2 for side A
para 4: reason 3 (some people may support side B, reason 1; reason 2; however, there are some conditions applied, so still i support side A, blabla....)
para 5: conclusion

-------------------------
Attribute Value Ideal
Score: 3.0 out of 6
Category: Satisfactory Excellent
No. of Grammatical Errors: 0 2
No. of Spelling Errors: 0 2
No. of Sentences: 20 15
No. of Words: 430 350
No. of Characters: 2187 1500
No. of Different Words: 207 200
Fourth Root of Number of Words: 4.554 4.7
Average Word Length: 5.086 4.6
Word Length SD: 2.812 2.4
No. of Words greater than 5 chars: 155 100
No. of Words greater than 6 chars: 123 80
No. of Words greater than 7 chars: 88 40
No. of Words greater than 8 chars: 59 20
Use of Passive Voice (%): 0 0
Avg. Sentence Length: 21.5 21.0
Sentence Length SD: 11.754 7.5
Use of Discourse Markers (%): 0.7 0.12
Sentence-Text Coherence: 0.301 0.35
Sentence-Para Coherence: 0.506 0.50
Sentence-Sentence Coherence: 0.053 0.07
Number of Paragraphs: 5 5