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.
It is an undeniable fact that contemporary life advancement, as we know it today, is solely due to the achievements in science. The prompt suggests that scientists should focus more on the practical sides of their studies rather than searching for fundamental knowledge. In my not so humble opinion, I partially disagree with the statement for the following two reasons.
To begin with, most of the practical sides of the scientific researchers are implemented in the long run and not in a short term benefit. For example, most of the surrounding technology goods and various gadgets would not have existed if the 18th and 17th-century scientist wouldn’t have done the fundamental researchers in electricity and electromagnetism fields. Take the case of Michael Faraday who discovered four basic differential equations describing the relationship between electric and magnetic fields and without his research, such commonplace things like cell phone, TV, and laptop wouldn’t have existed today. The given example illustrates the importance of fundamental research because of their essential long term benefit.
Furthermore, basic sciences are the driving force of any modern research inquiry. In other words, fuelling essential research fields like pure maths, physics, and biology would result in greater propulsion of other subsidiary fields. The practical researchers wouldn’t have discovered or invented anything without the base for it. In order to create something one must have instruments and material for that to happen. So basic sciences and the results of scientific researchers in those fields are the main resources and practical tools, at the same time, that helps in further deeper search for a novel useful inventions and discoveries. Thus, it’s important to nurture and invest in basic sciences and in the academic researches of these fields.
On the contrary, one might argue that bolstering the practical side of science will yield a more conducive effect and in some cases it’s true. For instance, if one would look into the modern pharmaceutical industry, it becomes clear that the money has some effect on the discovery rates of the new drugs and various remedies. Took the case of the recent Ebola virus outbreak in South Africa. It was discovered in the 1970s and yet the remedy for that virus has been invented only in 2014 during the epidemy, before that there was no legitimate or federally approved drug. Only after the outbreak and the significant amount of injected cash into the researches, the cure has been founded. It seems that when there is the ideal condition for the practical researches anything could be discovered. Therefore, in some specific instances targetted funding of sciences that are producing more applicable results could be justified.
In conclusion, more and more attention should be focused on fundamental areas of the research because of the arguments outlined above. However, the total dismissal of the practical side of the science would be too extreme to assume, and it can result in implausible results.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 7, column 755, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'researches'' or 'research's'?
Suggestion: researches'; research's
...s the ideal condition for the practical researches anything could be discovered. Therefore...
^^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
furthermore, however, if, look, so, therefore, thus, for example, for instance, in conclusion, in other words, in some cases, on the contrary, to begin with
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 15.0 19.5258426966 77% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 23.0 14.8657303371 155% => OK
Relative clauses : 12.0 11.3162921348 106% => OK
Pronoun: 27.0 33.0505617978 82% => OK
Preposition: 63.0 58.6224719101 107% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 12.9106741573 70% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2599.0 2235.4752809 116% => OK
No of words: 486.0 442.535393258 110% => OK
Chars per words: 5.34773662551 5.05705443957 106% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.69525374022 4.55969084622 103% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.88776093839 2.79657885939 103% => OK
Unique words: 262.0 215.323595506 122% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.539094650206 0.4932671777 109% => OK
syllable_count: 793.8 704.065955056 113% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 7.0 6.24550561798 112% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 3.0 3.10617977528 97% => OK
Conjunction: 3.0 1.77640449438 169% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.38483146067 205% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 22.0 20.2370786517 109% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 48.0120723455 60.3974514979 79% => OK
Chars per sentence: 118.136363636 118.986275619 99% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.0909090909 23.4991977007 94% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.09090909091 5.21951772744 136% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 13.0 10.2758426966 127% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 2.0 5.13820224719 39% => More negative sentences wanted.
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: 0.143467732059 0.243740707755 59% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0441556427192 0.0831039109588 53% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0427613007518 0.0758088955206 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.0842414263115 0.150359130593 56% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0385682659885 0.0667264976115 58% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 14.8 14.1392134831 105% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.8420337079 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 13.75 12.1639044944 113% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.85 8.38706741573 106% => OK
difficult_words: 127.0 100.480337079 126% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 11.5 11.8971910112 97% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => 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.