Governments should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development.
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.
The author contends that governments should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development. I agree that government should impose restrictions on certain scientific research which perhaps creates social chaos, however, it should not place prohibitions in the scientific field which can further advance the mankind because of the following reasons.
First of all, it is unwarranted to say that the scientific research and development always does good for mankind. Instead, in some cases it deteriorates the society and creates ethical questions. For supporting example, the scientific research and development in the sector of clone. Scientist were able to create successful sheep cone in nineteen century, however, seeing that progress, that creates huge debate in US about the possible consequences in the society if the human clone is done in the world. That arguable may create social as well ethical chaos, pointing that the possible outcome, US government suddenly decided to ban the research and development in the sector of animal cloning. If that was not done earlier, we may have facing the social chaos now. So government should place few restrictions on such scientific advancement which potentially creates the social disorder.
Secondly, there should not be placed any restrictions on the scientific research and development which has potential to create a great social advantage, For example, the advancement of rockets, medicine, education, physics, and AI. The development of advance rockets helps us to migrate to another planets and that might be good for mankind since after that we will be a multi-planetary species. The earth is fragile, in any time any asteroid may hit the planet that can sweep our species. Hence, the future of mankind is greatly benefited from the advancement of rockets and other subordinated. Hence, in such field placing restrictions might be counterproductive to mankind. Additionally, in the field of medicine, similarly, the restrictions should not be imposed since the advancement of medicines will greatly helps us to increase our life-span and quality of life.
Third of all, in reality it is really hard to say which one is ethical and which has potential to benefit mankind in the future, it is the great topic of debate. However, on the basis of simple fundamental things, we are trying to speculate that field which creates social chaos and which not.
In conclusion, government should take the wide-range of people's advice and suggestions before restricting or lifting any particular field's research and development.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 350, Rule ID: CD_NN[1]
Message: Possible agreement error. The noun 'century' seems to be countable, so consider using: 'centuries'.
Suggestion: centuries
...reate successful sheep cone in nineteen century, however, seeing that progress, that cr...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 791, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e social chaos now. So government should place few restrictions on such scientifi...
^^
Line 6, column 816, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'will' requires the base form of the verb: 'help'
Suggestion: help
...e advancement of medicines will greatly helps us to increase our life-span and qualit...
^^^^^
Line 11, column 133, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'fields'' or 'field's'?
Suggestion: fields'; field's
...e restricting or lifting any particular fields research and development.
^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
first, hence, however, if, may, really, second, secondly, similarly, so, third, well, for example, in conclusion, first of all, in some cases
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.5258426966 77% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.4196629213 129% => OK
Conjunction : 15.0 14.8657303371 101% => OK
Relative clauses : 20.0 11.3162921348 177% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 33.0505617978 82% => OK
Preposition: 51.0 58.6224719101 87% => OK
Nominalization: 17.0 12.9106741573 132% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2210.0 2235.4752809 99% => OK
No of words: 407.0 442.535393258 92% => More content wanted.
Chars per words: 5.42997542998 5.05705443957 107% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.49157444576 4.55969084622 99% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.00408317009 2.79657885939 107% => OK
Unique words: 188.0 215.323595506 87% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.461916461916 0.4932671777 94% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 663.3 704.065955056 94% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 7.0 4.99550561798 140% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 18.0 20.2370786517 89% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.2236753665 60.3974514979 91% => OK
Chars per sentence: 122.777777778 118.986275619 103% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.6111111111 23.4991977007 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.83333333333 5.21951772744 150% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 6.0 5.13820224719 117% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 4.0 4.83258426966 83% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.267236001306 0.243740707755 110% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0982160190309 0.0831039109588 118% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0816028006086 0.0758088955206 108% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.166126508966 0.150359130593 110% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0586393346731 0.0667264976115 88% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 15.5 14.1392134831 110% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.8420337079 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.51 12.1639044944 119% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.22 8.38706741573 98% => OK
difficult_words: 90.0 100.480337079 90% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
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 by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.