Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear.
Research is what paves the way for the future. Everything we have today is the boon of research scientists with profound knowledge. But, research without a certainty of safety in the future cannot be advocated. As the prompt tells us, if the consequences of a scientific research are unclear, then the Government should not fund the research. I mostly agree with this statement because of the following reasons.
Research, although done for a good cause, can have unforeseen consequences which can significantly affect the humankind in both positive or negative ways. A research with positive result can improve the situation greatly but if it leads to a negative innovation it might even cause adversity. For example, Albert Einstein, one of the pioneer of Physics in the 20th century, researched on Quantum physics and Relativity. But, his research later was used in the development of nuclear weapons, which cause loss of human lives in an unprecedented way and was caused the end of the second world war. If Einstein had never researched such aspects of physics, a significant part of human lives might have been saved. So, the possible consequences of a research should be declared beforehand if the Government is to offer any funding to the researchers.
Similarly, Research is not the only aspect the Government should be focusing on, especially if the research is not bound to produce appropriate results. The citizens of a country have different needs which should have precedence over such research activities. For example, countries like United States spending tons of money on military research for defense instead of focusing on development on Health and Food. They will claim that the research in military is for defense but if such research falls in the wrong hand, it can adversely affect the United states. Hence, Government should moderate the spending on such research and instead spend them on issues requiring immediate actions.
However, Research is what leads to innovation. Everything we have or use today came from someone's research either directly as a consequent of the research or indirectly. Scientists have unknowingly helped in development of things we use in our daily life. For example, microwave oven was invented when the heating effects of microwave were discovered whereas the original research might have been for communication using microwave. Similarly, the research of Albert Einstein might have caused development of nuclear weapons but it also significantly helped in the development of nuclear power plants for producing energy. Hence, sometimes Government should fund such research which might lead to innovations that help humanity.
In a nut shell, the decision to fund research is very complex and it depends upon a lot of factors. If the consequences of a research can be predicted and is positive, then the Government should fund them but if, the implications are negative or the consequences are unclear, then it might Government might be required to prevent funding such research. Hence, I mostly agree with the prompt and think that Government should not fund research with unclear consequences.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 156, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[1]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'research'.
Suggestion: Research
...kind in both positive or negative ways. A research with positive result can improve the si...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 525, Rule ID: IN_A_X_MANNER[1]
Message: Consider replacing "in an unprecedented way" with adverb for "unprecedented"; eg, "in a hasty manner" with "hastily".
...eapons, which cause loss of human lives in an unprecedented way and was caused the end of the second wo...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, hence, however, if, second, similarly, so, then, whereas, for example, such as
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 23.0 19.5258426966 118% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 22.0 12.4196629213 177% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 8.0 11.3162921348 71% => More relative clauses wanted.
Pronoun: 21.0 33.0505617978 64% => OK
Preposition: 59.0 58.6224719101 101% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 12.9106741573 147% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2657.0 2235.4752809 119% => OK
No of words: 504.0 442.535393258 114% => OK
Chars per words: 5.27182539683 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.73813722054 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.9079633401 2.79657885939 104% => OK
Unique words: 232.0 215.323595506 108% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.460317460317 0.4932671777 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 811.8 704.065955056 115% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 1.0 4.38483146067 23% => More preposition wanted as sentence beginning.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.2370786517 124% => OK
Sentence length: 20.0 23.0359550562 87% => OK
Sentence length SD: 45.2848760625 60.3974514979 75% => OK
Chars per sentence: 106.28 118.986275619 89% => OK
Words per sentence: 20.16 23.4991977007 86% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.56 5.21951772744 68% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 10.0 4.83258426966 207% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.392655990094 0.243740707755 161% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.130132006114 0.0831039109588 157% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.137099939174 0.0758088955206 181% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.263990350585 0.150359130593 176% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0982109668053 0.0667264976115 147% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.1392134831 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 51.18 48.8420337079 105% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.29 12.1639044944 109% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.14 8.38706741573 97% => OK
difficult_words: 112.0 100.480337079 111% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.0 11.8971910112 59% => Linsear_write_formula is low.
gunning_fog: 10.0 11.2143820225 89% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.