issue59 求改
59.Scientists and other researchers should focus their research on areas that are likely to benefit the greatest number of people.
Certainly as a researcher I agree that most research has concentrated on the effects on the majority of people are meaningful, such as medical research. There is important contribution that Scientists and researchers connect with knowledge and life, and strongly improve living of people. Researchers make chemical which is used as a medicine, and they produce drugs for people’ health. Aspirin is used in the treatment a number of conditions, such as fever, pain.
Also, those researches need human resource and financial support for working on continuously. If the outcome doesn't earn economic profit largely, the project might be stop suddenly.
However, the definition of author is unclear. What are the helpful researches for most of people? How could know their research bring benefit for society? For example, Philosophy is a neglected branch, and it makes people think mentally. It may not have a helpful effect.
Firstly, many researches could get people better superficially; however, it causes harm to human body. While the development of science and medicine treat patient well, production of drugs are entangled by profit of pharmaceutical company and corrupt of bureaucracy. The film, the constant gardener, told a story about inconsistent of humanitarian aid in the third country. In fact, the Africa people participate in illegal clinical trials and new drug tests. This causes some side effects, even some people died.
Moreover, diversity of research couldn't be known what numbers of people benefit their studies by scientists. Many scientists discovered new invention accidently. Who will foresee some researches become important findings in the future?
Next, researchers studies for their curiosity. Researchers just focus on mainstream researches, and it leads to other subjects decline. That knowledge may not be given to next generation. If one focus on partial researched, other studies couldn't be produced.
To sum up, the point of author is weaken, because of the unclear statement. I think that whole researches may be included. The government and society should encourage project in any approach and disciplinary, expect for those researches may endanger people, or involved moral principles.
正: 研究多数人有益的研究的确重要。研究需要人力、财力的持续投入，如果研究成果无法带来较大经济收益，研究工作将难以继续
判定标准有问题: 什么是对多数人类有的研究? 研究人员必须预先知道自己的研究能给社会带来多少收益。有些冷门的基础科学、思辨的学科(如哲学)，可能无法确定能够受惠多少人。
反1 :表面看似能够让多数人受惠的研究，实际上却对人体造成危害：
虽然，科学与医药的发展可以治疗人类的疾病、改善生活。然而，医药生产也涉及到药厂商业利益与官僚腐败，对于多数人并非会有益处。例: 电影，讲述表面上是对第三世界的人道救援，实际上却对于非洲人民进行不法的人体试验，危害试验者的身体健康，造成副作用，甚至死亡 。
反2: (1)多元的研究领域根本无法说清楚能让多少人受惠。很多发明是科学家偶然发现，更别说，谁会知道十年后这些研究会成为人类世界重要的发明呢?
(2)研究者只专注于某些研究，会使得另一些学科没落，知识无法被延续。人为了满足好奇心而进行研究，若只专注于某些研究，减低人们对于探问世界的能力下降，知识可能无法被生产。
结尾：总之，作者的观点不清楚、弱化。我认为两方面都兼顾。社会与国家要鼓励任何方向与领域的研究，除非那些研究危及人类生命安全或是道德伦理。
页:
[1]