Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear.Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing

Essay topics:

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

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.

Throughout history, we have witnessed and benefited from scientific advancement in wide-ranging contexts including medicine, astronomy, and physics. Some commend such efforts and have faith in financing scientific research projects whose results appear promising, if not conclusive at this juncture. On the other hand, as the prompt clearly states, others take a more conservative stance on this issue and are unwilling to advocate for such optimistic spending. Although this is an extremely sensitive subject in nature, a careful scrutiny into a few past and current scientific debates, such as that on marijuana and HIV/AIDS, provides a deeper insight into how governments should not disregard scientific research just because its consequences are ambiguous.

First and foremost, scientific results could be politicized and conveniently dismissed as “unclear.” The recent discussion on marijuana exemplifies the ways in which scientific research whose results are becoming increasingly clear continued to be shunned. Overwhelmingly proved to be less malign than legal drugs such alcohol or tobacco and to have rather positive effects on certain medical conditions such as cancer, marijuana has maintained its “Schedule I” status in the United States of America, a kind of drug that cannot be federally consumed and researched due to its harmful effects. Critics argue that a few powerful industries whose vested interests lie in maintaining the illegal status of marijuana, such as the private prison complex and the pharmaceutical industry, have been lobbying behind the scenes. In the case of the private prison, which benefits from increasing the number of inmates, the current status of marijuana as an illicit drug serves as the legitimate reason to incarcerate more prisoners, a robust source of revenue. For the pharmaceutical industry, marijuana’s ability to alleviate serious pain is an immense threat to the profitability of its painkillers. As this convoluted nature of politics illustrates, “unclear” scientific research results that are cited in certain cases can be driven by political manipulation rather than facts based on research. Therefore, with these hidden factors at play, governments should be wary of what “unclear” scientific consequences can mean when debating whether to fund such research projects.

Furthermore, it would not be so wise for governments to give up funding just because current results are “unclear.” If we revisit the history of medical advancement for HIV/AIDS treatment, it is evident that certain scientific research takes an enormous amount of time despite its potential social benefits. In the 1970s and 1980s, when an HIV/AIDS epidemic began to spread out, the world was at a loss and could not identify what the virus was, let alone any treatment for it. In contrast, today we have witnessed and benefited from incredible progress such as drugs that not only lessen its debilitating effects but also significantly prevent the virus from developing. Although we have yet to discover medication that completely eliminates the disease, one can argue that, in retrospect, the continued efforts to fund the relevant research projects have proven to be worthwhile and contributed to this progress. As such, because certain scientific research can be worthwhile while overwhelming and time-consuming, the claim that governments should not finance any research just because its results are unclear should not be unconditionally supported.

Admittedly, although the presented statement cannot be justified in the aforementioned cases, governments are always pressured to budget their taxpayer money wisely and it is not difficult in reality to reach consensus on what research to prioritize with budget constraints. For instance, in the wake of Urayasu City’s decision to subsidize egg-freezing practices in Japan, citizens have been debating whether this is the best way to use taxpayer money. As the likelihood of successful pregnancy from frozen eggs has never been proven to be 100%, some argue that its efficacy remains unclear and that this funding is by no means justifiable. While it appears to be one of the promising ways to deal with the low birthrate in Japan, it stands to reason that governments should be mindful of their resources and citizens’ opinions in making decisions.)

In summary, while there are arguments to be made for both sides, governments should not completely discount the importance of funding scientific research even in the face of heavy odds that its unclear results entail. The cases of marijuana and HIV/AIDS clearly illustrate the ways in which such decisions cannot only be politically misled, but also impede potential scientific strides that could have an immense impact on society.

Average: 2.3 (3 votes)
Essay Categories
Essays by the user:


Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 850, Rule ID: EN_UNPAIRED_BRACKETS
Message: Unpaired symbol: '(' seems to be missing
... citizens’ opinions in making decisions.) In summary, while there are argument...

Discourse Markers used:
['also', 'but', 'first', 'furthermore', 'if', 'so', 'therefore', 'while', 'for instance', 'in contrast', 'in summary', 'kind of', 'such as', 'on the other hand']

Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments

Performance in Part of Speech:
Nouns: 0.238154613466 0.240241500013 99% => OK
Verbs: 0.152119700748 0.157235817809 97% => OK
Adjectives: 0.122194513716 0.0880659088768 139% => OK
Adverbs: 0.0548628428928 0.0497285424764 110% => OK
Pronouns: 0.0261845386534 0.0444667217837 59% => OK
Prepositions: 0.133416458853 0.12292977631 109% => OK
Participles: 0.0461346633416 0.0406280797675 114% => OK
Conjunctions: 3.06889536761 2.79330140395 110% => OK
Infinitives: 0.0311720698254 0.030933414821 101% => OK
Particles: 0.00249376558603 0.0016655270985 150% => OK
Determiners: 0.0822942643392 0.0997080785238 83% => OK
Modal_auxiliary: 0.0211970074813 0.0249443105267 85% => OK
WH_determiners: 0.0199501246883 0.0148568991511 134% => OK

Vocabulary words and sentences:
No of characters: 4803.0 2732.02544248 176% => OK
No of words: 734.0 452.878318584 162% => Less content wanted.
Chars per words: 6.54359673025 6.0361032391 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 5.20503932437 4.58838876751 113% => OK
words length more than 5 chars: 0.449591280654 0.366273622748 123% => OK
words length more than 6 chars: 0.370572207084 0.280924506359 132% => OK
words length more than 7 chars: 0.273841961853 0.200843997647 136% => OK
words length more than 8 chars: 0.196185286104 0.132149295362 148% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.06889536761 2.79330140395 110% => OK
Unique words: 362.0 219.290929204 165% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.493188010899 0.48968727796 101% => OK
Word variations: 64.8396959019 55.4138127331 117% => OK
How many sentences: 22.0 20.6194690265 107% => OK
Sentence length: 33.3636363636 23.380412469 143% => OK
Sentence length SD: 52.9576471975 59.4972553346 89% => OK
Chars per sentence: 218.318181818 141.124799967 155% => OK
Words per sentence: 33.3636363636 23.380412469 143% => OK
Discourse Markers: 0.636363636364 0.674092028746 94% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.94800884956 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 5.21349557522 19% => OK
Readability: 70.4208570721 51.4728631049 137% => OK
Elegance: 1.79144385027 1.64882698954 109% => OK

Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.370909540992 0.391690518653 95% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence: 0.122272775656 0.123202303941 99% => OK
Sentence sentence coherence SD: 0.0531752548749 0.077325440228 69% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence: 0.551232926397 0.547984918172 101% => OK
Sentence paragraph coherence SD: 0.106500593081 0.149214159877 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.160954047946 0.161403998019 100% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0511840230513 0.0892212321368 57% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence: 0.431386434695 0.385218514788 112% => OK
Paragraph paragraph coherence SD: 0.0615953598651 0.0692045440612 89% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.270129451909 0.275328986314 98% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0271942455886 0.0653680567796 42% => OK

Task Achievement:
Sentences with positive sentiment : 14.0 10.4325221239 134% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.30420353982 132% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 1.0 4.88274336283 20% => More neutral sentences wanted.
Positive topic words: 12.0 7.22455752212 166% => OK
Negative topic words: 2.0 3.66592920354 55% => OK
Neutral topic words: 0.0 2.70907079646 0% => More neutral topic words wanted.
Total topic words: 14.0 13.5995575221 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?

Less content wanted. Write the essay in 30 minutes.
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 to cover all aspects.