Science by its very nature is empirical. The definition of science tells us that science is a field where knowledge is derived by making observations after experiments. The prompt here recommends that governments should holdback from funding scientific research whose results cannot be assed in advance. Undoubtedly, the recommendation is unjustified as it ignores the experiment driven nature of science where results from experiments are laways unpredicatble. Apart from this fundamental problem if such policies were proposed several problems would come up which are as discussed below.
To begin with, the most immediate effect would be that private players would step up to fund research as government moves out. Naturally, in an enviroment where research is driven by profits several key technologies like alternate energy and recycling techniques would get left out as their research is quite risky and costly and would not make business sense. Eventually, we would have a situation we would have best of high tech gadgets in our hands but would struggle to solve our basic problems. This might sound a little far-fetched but just look at your smartphone for instance, mobile phone tech and semiconductor industry has grown leaps and bounds over decades because of the strong demand from market. Today you have a handheld device which would have been considered a supercomputer just a few decades ago. While, we still struggle to find solutions to problems like lack of public transport and growing emergy demands. It is said that about 10 trillion dollars was invested in private capital for reasearch in electronics had even a fraction of it been diverted to alternative energy research we would have been enjoying the fruits of unlimited fusion energy.
Next, as funding is stopped by government for scientific research of many labs. The worst hit would be labs that are working on breakthrough technologies. As, they are working on tech whose results could not be assesed well in advance they would see a complete cut-off of funding and would cease operations. Finally, as breakthrough research is limited, the nation would fallback in scientific research and technology when compared to other nations. This would in turn make nation dependent on other nations for technological support. In, US itself as funding for advanced technological research is being curtailed due to massive protests from citizens who see advanced tech research as unnecesary and threatening, we are seeing that US dependence on coutries like China is increasing and this may eventually lead to a situation where US becomes completely dependent on China for technnological assistance.
The proponents of the recommendation that push for the policy chnage proclaim that funding scientific research whose results cannot be anticipated in advance could prove catastrophic later. They point towards incidents like a massive nuclear fallout, hazardous chemical leaks, and dangerous viruses escaping to cause epidemics. This view however is too extreme as most scientific research is conducted in designated zones with seperate conatinment areas, and personnel conducting research stick to safety protocols rigorously. The same is evident from history , if we lok back at the last 100 years of scientific research it is hard to find a single incident that may have caused widespread disruption, while during the same time many potentially dangerous research in fields like nuclear energy, and virology have grown leaps and bounds.
In conclusion, we can say that holding back funding for scientific research just because its results are unpredicatble is not well-thought out and a revision of the thought is suggested.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 6, column 876, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...US becomes completely dependent on China for technnological assistance. The p...
^^
Line 8, column 560, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Put a space after the comma, but not before the comma
Suggestion: ,
...rously. The same is evident from history , if we lok back at the last 100 years of...
^^
Line 10, column 147, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...npredicatble is not well-thought out and a revision of the thought is suggested.
^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, finally, however, if, look, may, so, still, well, while, apart from, for instance, in conclusion, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 34.0 19.5258426966 174% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 24.0 12.4196629213 193% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 14.8657303371 114% => OK
Relative clauses : 21.0 11.3162921348 186% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 33.0505617978 124% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 71.0 58.6224719101 121% => OK
Nominalization: 22.0 12.9106741573 170% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3132.0 2235.4752809 140% => OK
No of words: 580.0 442.535393258 131% => OK
Chars per words: 5.4 5.05705443957 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.90746259869 4.55969084622 108% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.93586568582 2.79657885939 105% => OK
Unique words: 314.0 215.323595506 146% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.541379310345 0.4932671777 110% => OK
syllable_count: 952.2 704.065955056 135% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 6.24550561798 176% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.99550561798 160% => OK
Subordination: 4.0 3.10617977528 129% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.2370786517 114% => OK
Sentence length: 25.0 23.0359550562 109% => OK
Sentence length SD: 75.182801798 60.3974514979 124% => OK
Chars per sentence: 136.173913043 118.986275619 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 25.2173913043 23.4991977007 107% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.04347826087 5.21951772744 97% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 3.0 7.80617977528 38% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 11.0 5.13820224719 214% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.16904268967 0.243740707755 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.052517016528 0.0831039109588 63% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0508571432706 0.0758088955206 67% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0938313585409 0.150359130593 62% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0118282867534 0.0667264976115 18% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 16.6 14.1392134831 117% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 46.1 48.8420337079 94% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.0 12.1743820225 107% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.34 12.1639044944 118% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.21 8.38706741573 110% => OK
difficult_words: 159.0 100.480337079 158% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 9.0 11.8971910112 76% => OK
gunning_fog: 12.0 11.2143820225 107% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => 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.