Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear.
The statement, declares that governments should refuse to help financially all the research that has ambiguous consequences. However this is a delicate issue and we should not treat all the research activities similarly. In the following I will explain some of the considerations which will show how we should treat this issue more wisely.
Many scientific research have unclear results at the beginning of defining that project. Most of them are based on the assumptions and initial study of the some scientists who hope highly that their naïve guess and primitive investigations will result in fruitful consequence. In this regard, if governments take the advice of this statement too seriously all of the research should be put aside because their consequences has not been clarified yet.
However, the budget that government can allocate to scientific research are limited, and obviously they cannot fund all the research proposals, hence governments should prioritize scientific projects and fund the ones which have been defined more wisely and have been supported by some evidences, which increase the hope for their possible success in future. To reach this goal even an organization can be constructed which evaluate the research proposals that it receives and supports them financially based on their merits.
Although I have disagreed with the idea of the statement so far, I am aware of some scientific research which are totally based on the raw guess of some scientists and they hardly may find success. In these cases the government should ignore them or at most help them to find some interested investors to support these projects personally. For example consider the efforts which has been done in the chain theory in Physics, which aims to prove the universe actually has eleven dimensions instead of three. Firstly all of the efforts in this field has been failed, secondly it is not clear even if this theory is true how human may benefit from it. From its beginning, this project wastes lots of the money of governments and also the time of the scientists, however governments could stop funding it sooner and asked the involved scientists to find other investors.
In conclusion, many of scientific research do not have a clear consequence at the beginning of their introduction to the scientific community, so the government should not refuse to fund them with the excuse of ambiguous consequences. However regarding the limited budget of the government it can prioritize and choose the ones which are more likely to succeed and for the rest devise a mean to introduce these projects to the interested investors.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 126, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...search that has ambiguous consequences. However this is a delicate issue and we should ...
^^^^^^^
Line 1, column 254, Rule ID: SOME_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'some'.
Suggestion: some
...ilarly. In the following I will explain some of the considerations which will show how we s...
^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 1, Rule ID: MANY_NN_U[3]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun research seems to be uncountable; consider using: 'much scientific research', 'a good deal of scientific research'.
Suggestion: Much scientific research; A good deal of scientific research
...e should treat this issue more wisely. Many scientific research have unclear results at the beginning o...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 156, Rule ID: THE_SOME_DAY[1]
Message: Did you mean 'same'?
Suggestion: same
...he assumptions and initial study of the some scientists who hope highly that their n...
^^^^
Line 2, column 356, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
... advice of this statement too seriously all of the research should be put aside because th...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 349, Rule ID: IN_PAST[1]
Message: Did you mean: 'in the future'?
Suggestion: in the future
...ase the hope for their possible success in future. To reach this goal even an organizatio...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 259, Rule ID: HELP_TO_FIND[1]
Message: This phrase is probably grammatically incorrect. Write 'help them find' instead.
Suggestion: help them find
...overnment should ignore them or at most help them to find some interested investors to support th...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 4, column 516, Rule ID: ALL_OF_THE[1]
Message: Simply use 'all the'.
Suggestion: all the
...en dimensions instead of three. Firstly all of the efforts in this field has been failed, ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 235, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: However,
...h the excuse of ambiguous consequences. However regarding the limited budget of the gov...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, first, firstly, hence, however, if, may, regarding, second, secondly, similarly, so, for example, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 14.0 19.5258426966 72% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.4196629213 137% => OK
Conjunction : 14.0 14.8657303371 94% => OK
Relative clauses : 15.0 11.3162921348 133% => OK
Pronoun: 40.0 33.0505617978 121% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 51.0 58.6224719101 87% => OK
Nominalization: 11.0 12.9106741573 85% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2215.0 2235.4752809 99% => OK
No of words: 429.0 442.535393258 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.16317016317 5.05705443957 102% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.55107846309 4.55969084622 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.82331633579 2.79657885939 101% => OK
Unique words: 200.0 215.323595506 93% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.4662004662 0.4932671777 95% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 676.8 704.065955056 96% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 2.0 6.24550561798 32% => OK
Article: 2.0 4.99550561798 40% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 15.0 20.2370786517 74% => Need more sentences. Double check the format of sentences, make sure there is a space between two sentences, or have enough periods. And also check the lengths of sentences, maybe they are too long.
Sentence length: 28.0 23.0359550562 122% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively long.
Sentence length SD: 64.871976487 60.3974514979 107% => OK
Chars per sentence: 147.666666667 118.986275619 124% => OK
Words per sentence: 28.6 23.4991977007 122% => OK
Discourse Markers: 8.46666666667 5.21951772744 162% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 9.0 7.80617977528 115% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 4.0 5.13820224719 78% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.83258426966 21% => More facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.288385794307 0.243740707755 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.106330317342 0.0831039109588 128% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0932210186525 0.0758088955206 123% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.186635737959 0.150359130593 124% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.04787076522 0.0667264976115 72% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.2 14.1392134831 122% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.06 48.8420337079 88% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.2 12.1743820225 117% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.24 12.1639044944 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.67 8.38706741573 103% => OK
difficult_words: 99.0 100.480337079 99% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 13.2 11.2143820225 118% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 58.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 3.5 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.