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.
Science and technology have achieved heights that have never been achieved earlier. The power of science in the contemporary world can hardly be understated. However, this power is accompanied by the ability to create tremendous destruction. Therefore, the government or any agency that funds research projects should be circumspective while putting their money on it. Because governments should be responsible towards their citizens as well as towards the entire world and because misuse science can cause unforeseen disasters, I firmly support the proposition that governments should not fund scientific research whose consequences are unclear.
First of all, there are plethora of instances where science has been misused. Tools of modern warfare are all products of scientific development. Therefore, the governments need to realize the potential of scientific researches to cause mass destruction. While it may be true that governments should spend on research for their defense purposes, governments should not overlook research which can create something dangerous to the nation or to the world. Thus, if the government implements the policy of not funding researches with uncle consequences, it can prevent possible accidents.
Even if the issue is not related to defense or security, government should still not spend in research without clear outcomes. After spending a significant amount of money, which is derived from the tax paid by the citizens, if the research turns out to be abortive, the money is wasted. As the government should hold the responsibility of utilizing every penny of its residents, it should be absolutely certain of where the money is being spent. When the government follows the norm of sponsoring only those research projects that will fruitful, the government can be sure that the money paid by the people is used for the benefit of the people. Therefore, any government implementing this policy will be looked upon by the people as a responsible government.
People supporting the argument that government should be lenient towards research without clear consequences will base their argument on the fact that all research might not have a clear outcome even if the intent of the reason is good and not funding the research will discourage those researchers. Although it might be true that some research which are done without the clear idea of the outcome have yielded good outcomes, when it comes to a government, a responsible body, the risk is not worth taking mainly because the outcomes can be negative or fruitless. Further, the scientists should have the ability to convince the government in what they are looking for and how beneficial the consequences can be. Only if the risk is worth taking, the government should fund those research projects.
At length, with the development of science, the liability of misuse of science causing havoc has also increased. A judicious government should take absolute caution against it. Further, the government should able to answer its citizens where their tax money is invested. If a scientific research fails, the money is wasted. Therefore, if a government makes a norm of not funding in research without clear outcomes, it avoids the chances of disasters and will be certain about where people’s money is spent.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 8, column 275, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[3]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'scientific research'.
Suggestion: scientific research
...s where their tax money is invested. If a scientific research fails, the money is wasted. Therefore, ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'first', 'however', 'if', 'look', 'may', 'so', 'still', 'therefore', 'thus', 'well', 'while', 'as to', 'as well as', 'first of all']
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.240069084629 0.240241500013 100% => OK
Verbs: 0.170984455959 0.157235817809 109% => OK
Adjectives: 0.0690846286701 0.0880659088768 78% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0552677029361 0.0497285424764 111% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0293609671848 0.0444667217837 66% => OK
Prepositions: 0.115716753022 0.12292977631 94% => OK
Participles: 0.0604490500864 0.0406280797675 149% => OK
Conjunctions: 2.90721208139 2.79330140395 104% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0172711571675 0.030933414821 56% => OK
Particles: 0.00172711571675 0.0016655270985 104% => OK
Determiners: 0.117443868739 0.0997080785238 118% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0483592400691 0.0249443105267 194% => Less modal verbs wanted (like 'must , shall , will , should , would , can , could , may , and might').
WH_determiners: 0.027633851468 0.0148568991511 186% => OK
Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 3316.0 2732.02544248 121% => OK
No of words: 525.0 452.878318584 116% => OK
Chars per words: 6.31619047619 6.0361032391 105% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.78673985869 4.58838876751 104% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.40380952381 0.366273622748 110% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.325714285714 0.280924506359 116% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.234285714286 0.200843997647 117% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.16 0.132149295362 121% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90721208139 2.79330140395 104% => OK
Unique words: 226.0 219.290929204 103% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.430476190476 0.48968727796 88% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
Word variations: 49.6097357131 55.4138127331 90% => OK
How many sentences: 24.0 20.6194690265 116% => OK
Sentence length: 21.875 23.380412469 94% => OK
Sentence length SD: 68.0900012035 59.4972553346 114% => OK
Chars per sentence: 138.166666667 141.124799967 98% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.875 23.380412469 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.625 0.674092028746 93% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.94800884956 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.21349557522 19% => OK
Readability: 54.4464285714 51.4728631049 106% => OK
Elegance: 1.62837837838 1.64882698954 99% => OK
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.256835783927 0.391690518653 66% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.137249062028 0.123202303941 111% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0784978491926 0.077325440228 102% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.533696841987 0.547984918172 97% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.159258397881 0.149214159877 107% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.111262620029 0.161403998019 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0581136285636 0.0892212321368 65% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.506309464012 0.385218514788 131% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.100592002463 0.0692045440612 145% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.195338222721 0.275328986314 71% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0361762528408 0.0653680567796 55% => The ideas may be duplicated in paragraphs.
Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 6.0 10.4325221239 58% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 12.0 5.30420353982 226% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.88274336283 123% => OK
Positive topic words: 6.0 7.22455752212 83% => OK
Negative topic words: 8.0 3.66592920354 218% => OK
Neutral topic words: 4.0 2.70907079646 148% => OK
Total topic words: 18.0 13.5995575221 132% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.