Scientists and other researchers should focus their research on areas that are likely to benefit the greatest number of people.
Although it might seem advantageous to focus scientific research on areas that are likely to benefit the greatest number of people, since scientific research might yield to discoveries not yet predicted, it is fundamental that no restrictions are made in the scientific field. In other words, the government should not imposed any restrictions in scientific research, because even if at a slow path, researchers must conduct their works to unpredicted results that can impact more people than previously imagined.
Science is an uncertain path. There is no way of anticipating all the results before initiating a research, because unexpected results can happen during a project. Not only these uncertainties can happen, but they must be embraced as a pith part of the science itself. It is the possibility of finding the unexpected, the unknown that has moved the science for many years. In this context, it is very hard to estimate the number of people that would benefit from a scientific endeavour, since different results might be accomplished during the process.
In practical terms, it would be very difficult to implement such a restriction. How would it work? How the benefits would be measured? To illustrate my point, imagine that two research proposals are competing for public fundings and that the greatest number of people is one of the indicators used to choose what research is going to receive the funds. Then, one research has a potential of benefiting a greatest number of people in improving the quality of education. The other has a potential of benefiting a smaller number or people by finding the cure of a very rare disease. Would the number of beneficiaries be the final indicator? Additionally, as stated in the previous paragraph it is very hard to anticipate the number of people that are going to benefit from a research.
On the contrary, people arguing that Scientists and other researchers should focus their research on areas that are likely to benefit the greatest number of people would probably argue that resources are limited and, thus, it is important to prioritize areas with greater impact. Although the argument is valid, it has an underlying assumption that same areas are more important than others, a historical trend of benefiting always more applied research. However, some areas has greater impacts in a more indirect levels, such as literature, art and social science in general.
Therefore, scientific research should not be restricted in any way. Actually, countries that are considered as successes in the scientific field are characterized by freedom in the research agenda, methods and content.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 1, column 320, Rule ID: DID_BASEFORM[1]
Message: The verb 'should' requires the base form of the verb: 'impose'
Suggestion: impose
... other words, the government should not imposed any restrictions in scientific research...
^^^^^^^
Line 9, column 403, Rule ID: THE_SUPERLATIVE[1]
Message: Use 'the' with the superlative.
Suggestion: the
... research has a potential of benefiting a greatest number of people in improving ...
^
Line 9, column 771, Rule ID: A_UNCOUNTABLE[1]
Message: Uncountable nouns are usually not used with an indefinite article. Use simply 'research'.
Suggestion: research
...f people that are going to benefit from a research. On the contrary, people arguing ...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 17, column 220, Rule ID: WHITESPACE_RULE
Message: Possible typo: you repeated a whitespace
Suggestion:
...e research agenda, methods and content.
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, but, however, if, so, then, therefore, thus, in general, such as, in other words, on the contrary
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 25.0 19.5258426966 128% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 17.0 12.4196629213 137% => OK
Conjunction : 8.0 14.8657303371 54% => More conjunction wanted.
Relative clauses : 13.0 11.3162921348 115% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 33.0505617978 88% => OK
Preposition: 55.0 58.6224719101 94% => OK
Nominalization: 10.0 12.9106741573 77% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2247.0 2235.4752809 101% => OK
No of words: 428.0 442.535393258 97% => OK
Chars per words: 5.25 5.05705443957 104% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.548423998 4.55969084622 100% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.92792995528 2.79657885939 105% => OK
Unique words: 202.0 215.323595506 94% => More unique words wanted.
Unique words percentage: 0.471962616822 0.4932671777 96% => OK
syllable_count: 691.2 704.065955056 98% => 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: 4.0 4.99550561798 80% => OK
Subordination: 7.0 3.10617977528 225% => Less adverbial clause wanted.
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 7.0 4.38483146067 160% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 20.0 20.2370786517 99% => OK
Sentence length: 21.0 23.0359550562 91% => OK
Sentence length SD: 75.1617422629 60.3974514979 124% => OK
Chars per sentence: 112.35 118.986275619 94% => OK
Words per sentence: 21.4 23.4991977007 91% => OK
Discourse Markers: 5.35 5.21951772744 102% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 4.0 7.80617977528 51% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 5.13820224719 97% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.460322820398 0.243740707755 189% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.121288275559 0.0831039109588 146% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.124507965355 0.0758088955206 164% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.251213333323 0.150359130593 167% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.12881043111 0.0667264976115 193% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.0 14.1392134831 99% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 50.16 48.8420337079 103% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 12.1743820225 94% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.17 12.1639044944 108% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.4 8.38706741573 100% => OK
difficult_words: 101.0 100.480337079 101% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 14.5 11.8971910112 122% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.4 11.2143820225 93% => OK
text_standard: 14.0 11.7820224719 119% => 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.