Governments should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development.
Scientific research and development is important for the development of any country. The prompt attempts to address this issue by the government should have some restrictions on scientific research and development. However, I mostly agree with this position for two reasons that will be outlined below. But, I do concede that in extreme cases there should be unrestricting on scientific research and development.
To begin with, the government should have some limitation on scientific research and development: outcome of scientific research can be used for both constructive purpose as well as destructive purpose. For example, the energy produced by nuclear reaction can be used for generation of power, but nuclear energy can also be utilized for producing weapons for mass destructive. If there would have restriction for production of nuclear energy, there wouldn't be nuclear attack on Hiroshima of japan. The nuclear attack on japan caused large mass destruction. Although nuclear energy is important for human, but if it is used in wrong way it will lead to destruction. The mass destruction due to nuclear weapon corroborate that scientific research and development on nuclear energy should be limited.
Admittedly, government should have restriction on the development of virus: virus harmful to the human can cause pandemic outbreak of disease. For example, many people believed that corona is developed by scientist as a weapon but not confirm; if it is true then it has killed millions of people and destroy many lives. If government had put restriction on such type of research then we wouldn't have face whatever we faced today. Medicine are boon to human if utilized properly otherwise curse to humanbeing. With the intention to earn much money, many private company are producing inundate amount of medicine and sell as drug.
We all knew that scientist are working in the field of animal cloning, producing clone alike of parent, which is beneficial for society. But if it is utilized by wrong person then that will lead to crimes. One's can clone alike their enemy and does social crime to frame their enemy. Nowadays, human trafficking is increasing, if some group of researcher started developing lab baby and started human trafficking. So such type of research should be restricted by government.
However, some scientific research and development have pernicious effect, researcher should have freedom to choose topic so they can dedicated towards the research topic that will enable science develop effectively and benefit society: scientific research results are safe. For example, nuclear energy production is safe but application is deleterious. So there shouldn't be restriction choosing topic for research.
To conclude, I argued that scientific research and development have both pernicious and innocuous effect so government should have some restriction on scientific research and development but i do concede that there shouldn't be any limitation on choosing research topic and exploring new thing. There should be limitation after the discovery if implementation is deleterious.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 2, column 172, Rule ID: BOTH_AS_WELL_AS[1]
Message: Probable usage error. Use 'and' after 'both'.
Suggestion: and
...n be used for both constructive purpose as well as destructive purpose. For example, the e...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 2, column 450, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...for production of nuclear energy, there wouldnt be nuclear attack on Hiroshima of japan...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 320, Rule ID: SENTENCE_FRAGMENT[1]
Message: “If” at the beginning of a sentence requires a 2nd clause. Maybe a comma, question or exclamation mark is missing, or the sentence is incomplete and should be joined with the following sentence.
...lions of people and destroy many lives. If government had put restriction on such ...
^^
Line 3, column 387, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...iction on such type of research then we wouldnt have face whatever we faced today. Medi...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 400, Rule ID: HAVE_PART_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Use past participle here: 'faced'.
Suggestion: faced
...h type of research then we wouldnt have face whatever we faced today. Medicine are b...
^^^^
Line 3, column 439, Rule ID: MASS_AGREEMENT[1]
Message: Consider using third-person verb forms for singular and mass nouns: 'is'.
Suggestion: is
... face whatever we faced today. Medicine are boon to human if utilized properly othe...
^^^
Line 5, column 134, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'can' requires the base form of the verb: 'dedicate'
Suggestion: dedicate
...ave freedom to choose topic so they can dedicated towards the research topic that will en...
^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 362, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: shouldn't
...ut application is deleterious. So there shouldnt be restriction choosing topic for resea...
^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 192, Rule ID: I_LOWERCASE[2]
Message: Did you mean 'I'?
Suggestion: I
...scientific research and development but i do concede that there shouldnt be any l...
^
Line 6, column 216, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: shouldn't
...development but i do concede that there shouldnt be any limitation on choosing research ...
^^^^^^^^
Line 6, column 311, Rule ID: SHOULD_BE_DO[1]
Message: Did you mean ''?
...nd exploring new thing. There should be limitation after the discovery if implementation i...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, so, then, well, for example, as well as, it is true, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 26.0 19.5258426966 133% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 20.0 12.4196629213 161% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 14.8657303371 141% => OK
Relative clauses : 10.0 11.3162921348 88% => OK
Pronoun: 26.0 33.0505617978 79% => OK
Preposition: 49.0 58.6224719101 84% => OK
Nominalization: 36.0 12.9106741573 279% => Less nominalizations (nouns with a suffix like: tion ment ence ance) wanted.
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2632.0 2235.4752809 118% => OK
No of words: 484.0 442.535393258 109% => OK
Chars per words: 5.43801652893 5.05705443957 108% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69041575982 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.96653350164 2.79657885939 106% => OK
Unique words: 216.0 215.323595506 100% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.446280991736 0.4932671777 90% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 817.2 704.065955056 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 4.0 6.24550561798 64% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.2370786517 124% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 60.097707111 60.3974514979 100% => OK
Chars per sentence: 105.28 118.986275619 88% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.36 23.4991977007 82% => OK
Discourse Markers: 3.6 5.21951772744 69% => OK
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 11.0 7.80617977528 141% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 8.0 10.2758426966 78% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 5.13820224719 253% => Less negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.356696973577 0.243740707755 146% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.116080771122 0.0831039109588 140% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.127710100291 0.0758088955206 168% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.241065585608 0.150359130593 160% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.109146776992 0.0667264976115 164% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 14.1392134831 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 43.73 48.8420337079 90% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.27 12.1639044944 117% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.27 8.38706741573 99% => OK
difficult_words: 113.0 100.480337079 112% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 9.6 11.2143820225 86% => 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.