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.
Wernher Von Brauhn once said, “Research is what I’m doing when I don’t know when I’m doing.” This quote, however, is not exclusive to the German Aerospace Engineer; the outcomes of scientific research are often uncertain, but not always unyielding. The prompt suggests that that government funding should not be provided for scientific research with unclear consequences. While I understand there are limitations to this argument, I mostly disagree with this suggestion for two reasons.
To begin, many of the most groundbreaking scientific discoveries were fortuitous. In other words, “happy accidents” would be an appropriate term to categorize such inventions. For instance, Percy Spencer, an engineer in 1946 was working on a radar project when he noticed a chocolate bar in his pocket slowly melt. While the first microwave weighed 750 pounds, technology has developed a long way since then, and most households could not imagine daily life without their compact “chocolate-bar-melters”. Thus, while the outcomes of certain ventures may be ambiguous, restricting their scope will only derail societies from progressing from a scientific and technological perspective. Perhaps the vaccine for the novel Coronavirus lies in the hands of a young pharmacologist, but if his research is defunded due to the “potential consequences”, we may never know!
Further, even if we do make unexpected discoveries, is that not the entire premise of scientific research- to discover the unknown? NASA has poured billions of dollars into space research, and still, over decades of trying to understand the universe, our understanding of black holes, the formation of the universe, and astronomical theories is meager. Whether it may be finding a cure for the Coronavirus or trying to discover the most efficient renewable energy source, humans have relentlessly continued to try finding solutions to these seemingly plausible issues. Had governments rejected the claims of scientists to delve into the unknown, we never would have gained insights into these vast and intriguing realms of the universe. Even if the outcomes do not yield the answers we are in search of, there is no doubt that there is a tremendous amount of knowledge acquired in the process.
It should, however, be considered that not all scientific research is done for the greater good. Several scientists and companies around the world are primarily concerned with their own profit, and often disregard their impacts on others or the environment. For example, several clothing and cosmetics companies, including OPI, Victoria’s Secret, and Maybelline, were recently defamed after claims that most of their product research is done on animals. Many may argue that pigs, rats, and dogs have been used for scientific research for centuries and that this should not come as a shock. However, with more people becoming cognizant of animal cruelty, and with access to modern technology, alternative solutions to such unethical methods should either be devised, or restrictions must be imposed in order to avoid any potential harm done.
In conclusion, defunding research with ambiguous consequences closes up many doors of opportunity in medical and scientific research. While measures should be taken in order to avoid the exploitation of resources and lives, curbing scientific discovery, in the long-term, would do more harm than good.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 272, Rule ID: MANY_NN_U[8]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun clothing seems to be uncountable; consider using: 'some clothing'.
Suggestion: some clothing
...others or the environment. For example, several clothing and cosmetics companies, including OPI,...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 455, Rule ID: MANY_NN_U[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun may seems to be uncountable; consider using: 'much may', 'a good deal of may'.
Suggestion: Much may; A good deal of may
...ir product research is done on animals. Many may argue that pigs, rats, and dogs have be...
^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, first, however, if, may, so, still, then, thus, while, for example, for instance, in conclusion, no doubt, in other words
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.5258426966 128% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 15.0 12.4196629213 121% => OK
Conjunction : 19.0 14.8657303371 128% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 34.0 33.0505617978 103% => OK
Preposition: 63.0 58.6224719101 107% => OK
Nominalization: 7.0 12.9106741573 54% => More nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2900.0 2235.4752809 130% => OK
No of words: 528.0 442.535393258 119% => OK
Chars per words: 5.49242424242 5.05705443957 109% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.79356345386 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.15185203619 2.79657885939 113% => OK
Unique words: 306.0 215.323595506 142% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.579545454545 0.4932671777 117% => OK
syllable_count: 866.7 704.065955056 123% => 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: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 6.0 3.10617977528 193% => OK
Conjunction: 10.0 1.77640449438 563% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 26.0 23.0359550562 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 59.039711212 60.3974514979 98% => OK
Chars per sentence: 145.0 118.986275619 122% => OK
Words per sentence: 26.4 23.4991977007 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 6.3 5.21951772744 121% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 4.0 10.2758426966 39% => More positive sentences wanted.
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 5.13820224719 195% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 6.0 4.83258426966 124% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.156767616917 0.243740707755 64% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0527260828332 0.0831039109588 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0547874686781 0.0758088955206 72% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0949537824605 0.150359130593 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0442037920221 0.0667264976115 66% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.6 14.1392134831 124% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.09 48.8420337079 92% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.4 12.1743820225 110% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.86 12.1639044944 122% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.8 8.38706741573 117% => OK
difficult_words: 163.0 100.480337079 162% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.0 11.8971910112 92% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.4 11.2143820225 111% => OK
text_standard: 11.0 11.7820224719 93% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 83.33 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 5.0 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.