Scientists and other researchers should focus their research on areas that are likely to benefit the greatest number of people.
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.
Many people agree the claim that scientific researches should focus on the most beneficial and practical technology. However, this assertion could not be true because of several reasons, and this essay will state these reasons.
Admittedly, some people should agree that scientific studies should concern practical problem first, because the result of these researches should improve human lives, and make better society. For example, the invention of the vaccine plays critical role in improvement of human health. For instance, Penicillin, which is made by Alexander Fleming, help to exterminate the disease and eventually result in more healthy human lives. Similarly, the GMO, which is technology to modify gene of crops and increase their productivity, help human being to escape from the poverty and lack of foods. Because of these examples, it could be plausible that scientists should primarily study areas related to human being's actual life .
However, generally these concentrations on research could be harmful, because the most important aim of scientific study is not to solve practical problems, but to broaden human knowledge about the world. If scientists only examine pragmatic problems, another important problems to investigate could be overlooked, because there are only limited resources for scientific researches. For example, Isaac Newton's gravitation theory is not a consequence of practical concern. Instead, these ingenious result is made by curiosity, which is stimulated by desire to know more about nature. If Newton only concentrated on practical subjects, such as elimination of poverty or disease, gravitation theory could not be invented. Similarly, the most of the mathematical studies are irrelevant to actual human benefit, because mathematics only concerns highly abstract entities. In spite of its lack of practicableness, these mathematical researches is important, because it improves human knowledge significantly. For these examples, such as gravitation theory or mathematics, it is clear that partiality on scientific studies could hinder less useful, but more important scientific developments.
Furthermore, even though the statement assumes that the future benefit of such technologies is predictable, its benefit could not be expected correctly in reality, so that the scientific studies, which seemed to be not beneficial to human life at past, could eventually make significant benefit for humans. For example, in the early twentieth century, people and scientists could not expect that the general relativity theory of Einstein have practical benefits. However, in present, this general relativity theory is essential in GPS technology, which makes human lives more convenient. Similarly, NASA's Mars exploration project with Mars Exploration Rover, could be another case of unpredictable future benefit. It is obvious that Mars exploration project does not make immediate benefit, and its future benefit is also dubious, because Mars can be judged as inappropriate human habitat. However, this exploration project is worthy, because it could provide alternative habitats, which would be critical for survival of human species. If scientists only studies problems which makes most probable benefit, the enterprising project, which can make immeasurable benefits, can not be conducted.
In conclusion, even though scientists should focus on practical problems under certain conditions, generally they should also research seemingly unpractical problems, because such concentrations could be obstacles for progress of human knowledge, and the future benefit of research could not be predicted precisely.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
Many people agree the claim that scienti...
^^^
Line 3, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...this essay will state these reasons. Admittedly, some people should agree tha...
^^^
Line 3, column 725, Rule ID: COMMA_PARENTHESIS_WHITESPACE
Message: Don't put a space before the full stop
Suggestion: .
...reas related to human beings actual life . However, generally these concentr...
^^
Line 5, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...elated to human beings actual life . However, generally these concentrations ...
^^^
Line 7, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e important scientific developments. Furthermore, even though the statement a...
^^^
Line 7, column 662, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...ion project with Mars Exploration Rover, could be another case of unpredictable f...
^^
Line 9, column 1, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...able benefits, can not be conducted. In conclusion, even though scientists sh...
^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, but, first, furthermore, however, if, look, similarly, so, for example, for instance, in conclusion, such as, in spite of
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 29.0 19.5258426966 149% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 25.0 12.4196629213 201% => Less auxiliary verb wanted.
Conjunction : 13.0 14.8657303371 87% => OK
Relative clauses : 16.0 11.3162921348 141% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 33.0505617978 88% => OK
Preposition: 52.0 58.6224719101 89% => OK
Nominalization: 14.0 12.9106741573 108% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 3129.0 2235.4752809 140% => OK
No of words: 534.0 442.535393258 121% => OK
Chars per words: 5.8595505618 5.05705443957 116% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.80712388197 4.55969084622 105% => OK
Word Length SD: 3.01070149993 2.79657885939 108% => OK
Unique words: 246.0 215.323595506 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.460674157303 0.4932671777 93% => More unique words wanted or less content wanted.
syllable_count: 975.6 704.065955056 139% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.8 1.59117977528 113% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 9.0 6.24550561798 144% => OK
Article: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 15.0 3.10617977528 483% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 6.0 1.77640449438 338% => Less conjunction wanted as sentence beginning.
Preposition: 5.0 4.38483146067 114% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 23.0 20.2370786517 114% => OK
Sentence length: 23.0 23.0359550562 100% => OK
Sentence length SD: 55.5553845828 60.3974514979 92% => OK
Chars per sentence: 136.043478261 118.986275619 114% => OK
Words per sentence: 23.2173913043 23.4991977007 99% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.52173913043 5.21951772744 106% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 7.0 7.80617977528 90% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 7.0 5.13820224719 136% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 3.0 4.83258426966 62% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.135520757824 0.243740707755 56% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0488740587484 0.0831039109588 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0420466280417 0.0758088955206 55% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0976841033106 0.150359130593 65% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0301510244523 0.0667264976115 45% => Paragraphs are similar to each other. Some content may get duplicated or it is not exactly right on the topic.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 17.8 14.1392134831 126% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 31.21 48.8420337079 64% => OK
smog_index: 11.2 7.92365168539 141% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 14.6 12.1743820225 120% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 17.0 12.1639044944 140% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 9.36 8.38706741573 112% => OK
difficult_words: 155.0 100.480337079 154% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.2 11.2143820225 100% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 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.