Governments should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development.
The accidental nature of many discoveries, biological breakthroughs that were nothing more than serendipity, and the prevalent trial-and-error approach in scientific research incline us to believe that this field needs freedom, more than anyone else. I wouldn't be as unqualified as is the author though, as the areas likely to significantly impact and affect our lives are also the most subversive.
History is sufficiently rife with instances in which scientific research, whether bound to the government or not, went far beyond the potential risks of an experimentation. Let's focus on the multitude of crimes committed under the garb of research over the Second World War. The German government indeed considered the Jewish as guinea pigs, inoculating them the mortal disease "typhus", and using some of them to flirt with the risks linked to alimentation. In 1945, two bombs were dropped by the United States, killing millions of innocent Japanese people, the consequences of which extend till now with children's malformation. These instances remind us the grim face of our humanity and highlight that a scope is required for the development of any project related to humans.
It is also crucial to note that the medical field, or the new technologies are subject to stringent control and process before any research can see the light of the day. The collect of datum operated by companies like Google or Facebook must be checked. The Hippocratic oath and the "primum non nocere" principle must also be backed up by laws and governments asking for accountability. Otherwise, pharmaceutical laboratories would grow to be remiss on the possible side effects of medicines, whom could test anything for a pittance, the poor people bearing the brunt of such practices.
Admittedly, judicial systems are outdated in the legislation towards innovations and scientific development, especially when there isn't precedent. The rules neurosciences, for instance, should abide by can hardly be accurately ascertained by congress-men/women whom studied politics or macroeconomics as major course. However, governments are the unique body able to appoint committees of expert to regulate and demarcate the set of boundaries which scientists shouldn't exceed.
These arguments don't preclude scientific fields from being innovative or paving the way for a future replete with technologies. Our societies' development but also ours, as individuals', rely more and more on science, which mostly impact positively our lives. It is more than ever essential for governments to unravel the conundrums concatenated to scientific research. Budget issues, the balance between risks and benefits, and the ethical debates when growing lumps of human brains' in labs would be best tackled if clear restrictions and possibilities are drawn.
To conclude, scientific research, like any other form of expression or society's improvement, must be boundary-less within its own frame, demarcated by governments working for the people
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 254, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: wouldn't
...needs freedom, more than anyone else. I wouldnt be as unqualified as is the author thou...
^^^^^^^
Line 3, column 174, Rule ID: LETS_LET[1]
Message: Did you mean 'Let's'?
Suggestion: Let's
... potential risks of an experimentation. Lets focus on the multitude of crimes commit...
^^^^
Line 7, column 132, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: isn't
...ific development, especially when there isnt precedent. The rules neurosciences, for...
^^^^
Line 7, column 462, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: shouldn't
... the set of boundaries which scientists shouldnt exceed. These arguments dont preclud...
^^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 17, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: don't
...sts shouldnt exceed. These arguments dont preclude scientific fields from being i...
^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, however, if, second, so, for instance
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 20.0 19.5258426966 102% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 9.0 12.4196629213 72% => OK
Conjunction : 21.0 14.8657303371 141% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 20.0 33.0505617978 61% => OK
Preposition: 60.0 58.6224719101 102% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 12.9106741573 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2571.0 2235.4752809 115% => OK
No of words: 461.0 442.535393258 104% => OK
Chars per words: 5.57700650759 5.05705443957 110% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.63367139033 4.55969084622 102% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.26644972692 2.79657885939 117% => OK
Unique words: 288.0 215.323595506 134% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.624728850325 0.4932671777 127% => OK
syllable_count: 790.2 704.065955056 112% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.7 1.59117977528 107% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 8.0 4.99550561798 160% => OK
Subordination: 2.0 3.10617977528 64% => OK
Conjunction: 4.0 1.77640449438 225% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 3.0 4.38483146067 68% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 19.0 20.2370786517 94% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 23.0359550562 104% => OK
Sentence length SD: 38.1787601754 60.3974514979 63% => OK
Chars per sentence: 135.315789474 118.986275619 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.2631578947 23.4991977007 103% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.52631578947 5.21951772744 48% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 6.0 4.97078651685 121% => OK
Language errors: 5.0 7.80617977528 64% => 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: 5.0 4.83258426966 103% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.215481986113 0.243740707755 88% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0577329225051 0.0831039109588 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0512675839618 0.0758088955206 68% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.105640143386 0.150359130593 70% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0428428411293 0.0667264976115 64% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.0 14.1392134831 120% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 38.66 48.8420337079 79% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 13.8 12.1743820225 113% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 15.38 12.1639044944 126% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 10.14 8.38706741573 121% => OK
difficult_words: 155.0 100.480337079 154% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 15.0 11.8971910112 126% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 11.2143820225 103% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => 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.