Governments should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development.
The outcomes of scientific research and development are enigmatic and unpredictable. For the government to allow science to prosper and science to advance, it should let loose scientific research for all possibilities to happen.
Firstly, Government is not an omniscient entity. Officials at the top may be as nescient as ordinary multitude about the potential and outcomes of an ongoing research project in a specific field. For example, when Frank Whittle, a Royal Air Force (RAF) officer, proposed his idea of a turbo-engine, British air force deemed it unfeasible. The officer then raised his own funding and conducted his tests. After initial experimental success, the RAF finally gave in and the invention of turbo engine was made possible. This clearly illustrates that departments at the top, given their limited understanding, must not put restrictions on people who want to realize their research ideas.
History is replete with discoveries that only became possible after defying Government restrictions. For example, the scientific research of medieval Europe was strictly controlled by the Catholic Church. Any research supporting the Catholic principles were allowed while those serving the opposite purpose were restricted. The Catholic notion was that the sun orbits the earth, while study and observations by a polish scientist Copernicus proved the opposite. However, the pressure from the Church forbade him from publishing his ideas. After his death, his theory was supported by many scientists like Galileo – who persecuted on the church orders. Without restrictions, human knowledge of Astronomy would have developed much faster. Another example can be found in the practice of Alchemy in ancient China which was banned by the then rulers who believed that it would not produce any favorable results. Defying these restrictions, some alchemist continued the practice and experiments in their labs discreetly. Once during such an experiment, the lab exploded arousing people’s interest in the research area. While the experiment was a failure, the unforeseen result was just what the rulers would have dreamed: a more devastating weapon. This shows that restrictions only serve the purpose of impeding scientific research and the development of the nation.
However, there must be some regulations on research methodology. The forced organ harvesting for medical research from the persecution of Fulan Gong political prisoners in China is enough to emphasize this point. This regulation, however, must be associated with the consultation with scientific peers and professionals from civil society, rights group, etc. Moreover, some people argue that without restrictions technology can grossly be misused e.g. Gun powder, nuclear energy, etc. One must not forget that technology in itself is not inherently baneful. The use or abuse of scientific research depends upon the motives of the people undertaking it. The same gun powder is being used to construct tunnels and roadways thus positively affecting many lives. Similarly, the as perceived ‘destructive’ nuclear technology is being used to provide electricity to millions or can be used to propel space crafts in deeper space. Thus, the restriction must not be on scientific research but rather on the use of technology.
In conclusion, for science to prosper and hence for a nation to advance, Government must not put restrictions on the scientific research and development. However, some laws must be in place to avoid misuse of technology and unethical research methodology - that too must be associated with a peer-review process.
Comments
This writing is based on a
This writing is based on a model essay.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 17, column 314, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
... associated with a peer-review process.
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
but, e.g., finally, first, firstly, hence, however, if, may, moreover, similarly, so, then, thus, while, for example, in conclusion
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 27.0 19.5258426966 138% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 16.0 12.4196629213 129% => OK
Conjunction : 17.0 14.8657303371 114% => OK
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 33.0505617978 88% => OK
Preposition: 69.0 58.6224719101 118% => OK
Nominalization: 19.0 12.9106741573 147% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3093.0 2235.4752809 138% => OK
No of words: 555.0 442.535393258 125% => OK
Chars per words: 5.57297297297 5.05705443957 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.85370353223 4.55969084622 106% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.07487055705 2.79657885939 110% => OK
Unique words: 301.0 215.323595506 140% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.542342342342 0.4932671777 110% => OK
syllable_count: 951.3 704.065955056 135% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 5.0 6.24550561798 80% => OK
Article: 14.0 4.99550561798 280% => Less articles wanted as sentence beginning.
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 0.0 1.77640449438 0% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 4.38483146067 91% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 31.0 20.2370786517 153% => OK
Sentence length: 17.0 23.0359550562 74% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 33.1614785987 60.3974514979 55% => The essay contains lots of sentences with the similar length. More sentence varieties wanted.
Chars per sentence: 99.7741935484 118.986275619 84% => OK
Words per sentence: 17.9032258065 23.4991977007 76% => OK
Discourse Markers: 4.22580645161 5.21951772744 81% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 7.0 10.2758426966 68% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 10.0 5.13820224719 195% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 14.0 4.83258426966 290% => Less facts, knowledge or examples wanted.
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.221740073408 0.243740707755 91% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0590709508656 0.0831039109588 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0706133356482 0.0758088955206 93% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.145238666726 0.150359130593 97% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0662480226549 0.0667264976115 99% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.8 14.1392134831 98% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 45.76 48.8420337079 94% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.1 12.1743820225 91% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 14.73 12.1639044944 121% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.52 8.38706741573 114% => OK
difficult_words: 177.0 100.480337079 176% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 8.5 11.8971910112 71% => OK
gunning_fog: 8.8 11.2143820225 78% => OK
text_standard: 9.0 11.7820224719 76% => 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.