Scholars and researchers should not be concerned with whether their work makes a
contribution to the larger society. It is more important that they pursue their individual interests,
however unusual or idiosyncratic those interests may seem.
Should the contribution to society be a parameter of concern in a researcher’s work? The statement claims otherwise and instead supports that research should be solely driven by one’s passion and interests. I wholeheartedly agree. Not only is it difficult to judge the merit of an invention in its nascent stages, such meaningless concern about its effect on society can often impede progress. If not qualified, such concern can also backfire and lead to great societal harm.
To begin with, the author’s claim implicitly assumes that an invention’s contribution to the society can be predicted during its development phase. It is easy to find examples that prove otherwise. Consider the internet, a project which was started by the United States Department of Defence to enhance wartime communication. None of its founding researchers and army generals could’ve predicted the revolution this technology would bring to the world. What began as an idea exclusive to the army now permeates the daily life of each of us. In fact, even today after many years of its inception, several novel ideas such as social media and e-commerce are built on top of it. Clearly, to measure such an invention’s far reaching effects on the society is meaningless, and any such attempts would only detract from actual research work.
Further, assuming that there exists prophetic knowledge on the societal impact of every piece of research, inumerous advances were made only because of a scholar’s intransigence in face of society’s negative recommendations. Consider the modern airplane, foundations of which were laid by the Wright brothers. Their heroic tale is plagued with multiple failures and discouragement from the people around them. Many told them that their efforts were futile and a waste of their resources. It is difficult to imagine that they would have succeeded had they heeded to their contemporaries’ advice. This shows that not only is it hard to estimate an invention’s contribution to the society, but often it is plain wrong. In fact, expectations like these can often translate into the fear of failure, preventing scholars from taking giant leaps of faith required to push a field’s boundaries.
Finally, some of history's most egregious crimes have been a product of researcher’s misplaced belief that they are working towards a better society. Case in point is the Nazi regime and their ‘Survival of the Fittest’ theory. In their attempt to ‘purify’ the world, they undertook severely dangerous operations on healthy people to emulate physical characteristics closer to their race of choice. Such mad rush was fueled by their own vision of the perfect society - something the author’s claim seems to justify.
To sum up, the claim that societal consideration should be a major parameter behind choosing a research project is baseless. Not only is such a parameter hard to quantify, but limited knowledge can often miscalculate it. Further, the subjectivity of such a parameter makes it susceptible to incredibly varying and sometimes reprehensible defintions all in the name of bettering the society.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 5, column 387, Rule ID: NOUN_AROUND_IT[1]
Message: Consider using 'the surrounding people'?
Suggestion: the surrounding people
...ltiple failures and discouragement from the people around them. Many told them that their efforts were...
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Line 7, column 72, Rule ID: APOSTROPHE_PLURAL[1]
Message: Consider using the plural form here: 'researchers'.
Suggestion: researchers
...egregious crimes have been a product of researcher’s misplaced belief that they are working ...
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, finally, if, so, in fact, such as, to begin with, to sum up
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 22.0 19.5258426966 113% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 12.0 14.8657303371 81% => OK
Relative clauses : 11.0 11.3162921348 97% => OK
Pronoun: 41.0 33.0505617978 124% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 74.0 58.6224719101 126% => OK
Nominalization: 15.0 12.9106741573 116% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2656.0 2235.4752809 119% => OK
No of words: 497.0 442.535393258 112% => OK
Chars per words: 5.34406438632 5.05705443957 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.72159896747 4.55969084622 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.0801929988 2.79657885939 110% => OK
Unique words: 282.0 215.323595506 131% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.567404426559 0.4932671777 115% => OK
syllable_count: 817.2 704.065955056 116% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 6.0 6.24550561798 96% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 3.10617977528 32% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 6.0 4.38483146067 137% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 26.0 20.2370786517 128% => OK
Sentence length: 19.0 23.0359550562 82% => The Avg. Sentence Length is relatively short.
Sentence length SD: 43.6337635948 60.3974514979 72% => OK
Chars per sentence: 102.153846154 118.986275619 86% => OK
Words per sentence: 19.1153846154 23.4991977007 81% => OK
Discourse Markers: 2.69230769231 5.21951772744 52% => More transition words/phrases wanted.
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 7.80617977528 26% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 12.0 10.2758426966 117% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 7.0 4.83258426966 145% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.218506987029 0.243740707755 90% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0591052362474 0.0831039109588 71% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0655244548146 0.0758088955206 86% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.122022657456 0.150359130593 81% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0507931738081 0.0667264976115 76% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.3 14.1392134831 94% => Automated_readability_index is low.
flesch_reading_ease: 52.19 48.8420337079 107% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 10.7 12.1743820225 88% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.69 12.1639044944 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.15 8.38706741573 109% => OK
difficult_words: 144.0 100.480337079 143% => 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: 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.