Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The government should support scientific researches even though there's no practical use?
In a rapidly changing world shaped by globalization, the government is confronted with a dilemma: if the scientific researches don't have practical use, should the government still support scientific researches?
Personally, I think, perhaps these researches will not expose any distinct benefit in the near future, but it is relevant to the critical problem of our offspring's survival. For example, the NASA's Mars Exploration Program whose threshold purpose is not just only to look for any living bodies on Mars, but to search whether there is living condition for any beings to survival. The goal of this program is excellent; however, it's a long run for us to know whether we can find out the living condition, or what we will do after we identify the suitable condition. But it's of great significance for the government to support the research by virtue of human sustainable development, though the exploration now doesn't have practical use. Once the program successfully detects the living condition, we will be less worried about the terrible environment our offspring lives in.
In addition, scientific researches may contribute to the solutions of energy crises as well as difficult or deteriorating problems in many fields, such as ecology, population even nuclear research. It's generally accepted that there are a range of researches didn't approved by the contemporary public because people thought they have no practical use, but latter they did help to solve problem. Maybe the Nanometer Technology fit to explain this point. At the beginning, the general public didn't receive benefits from the Nanometer Technology, latter, it made us thrilled to know that the Nanometer Technology could be used to a series of fields. For instance, the technology can be utilized in operation, there are some parts of tissue too delicate to be handled by physician, due to the tiny body, the Nanometer robert can easily enter those parts to do the demands ordered by physician.
Furthermore, the government should limit their support for some researches which may be against the standard of humanity even though they may have practical use, like colony. To be frank, cloning some species at the edge of extinction is good for ecology; however, cloning human is somehow a kind of violence of humanity, so the government should make a thorough analysis of both advantages and disadvantages of the research.
To sum up, only when the government supports the scientific researches though they don’t have practical use and limit the harmful side of researches will the country has a sustainable and healthy development.
综合
The professor actually contradicts the statements made in the passage. She is of the view that the population of birds will not decline.
The professor contradicts the issue of the population of birds will decline based on the fact that with the increasing urban areas there will be better and larger areas for birds to live. In the urban area, people complain about the large number of birds.
The second point of difference between the lecture and the reading passage concerns the impact of the taking up fields for agriculture. The professor points out that there will be less rather than more fields for agriculture. Because, in United States, farmers tend to produce crops so that they don't need to destruct the habitats of birds.
Finally, the lecture cites two reasons to go against opinion in the reading passage about the pesticide will lead to the decline of bird's population. First people replace the traditional pesticide with a new and less toxic one. Another one is farmers now plant a kind of crop which owns an ability to resist pests. From these two changes we can figure out that the number of bird won't decline in terms of the pesticide.
Thus it can be inferred that the professor challenges the passage by giving reasons as to why she thinks that the population of bird won't decline. 作者: hdchangie 时间: 2011-1-28 11:04:04
Wendy的综合 : X1 j* u" ] n ?$ M; S" y; i1 uThe professor actually contradicts the statements made in the passage. She is of
（不知道可以这样表达，是不是改成holds就好了？如果确实有这样的表达就不要离我。。。）the view that the population of birds will not decline.
: Z. G9 f3 t, N& E$ N( O' ^0 Z
, { t3 I0 {1 T3 g& z4 |" H
The professor contradicts the issue of（改成that是不是更好？）
the population of birds will decline based on the fact that with the increasing urban areas there will be better and larger areas for birds to live. In the urban area, people complain about the large number of birds.% g5 ], \: r0 n' P. V8 N
2 I5 R [6 u( CThe second point of difference between the lecture and the reading passage concerns the impact of the taking up fields for agriculture. The professor points out that there will be less rather than more fields for agriculture. Because, in United States, farmers tend to produce crops so that they don't need to destruct the habitats of birds.（
& g$ T: Y$ }* I; B$ d! _仅仅是produce crops这个原因推不出后面的结果，lecture中说的是more productive crops，更加高产的crops才可以使得农业用地减少~）. r! a
Finally, the lecture cites two reasons to go against opinion in the reading passage about the pesticide will lead to the decline of bird's population. First people replace the traditional pesticide with a new and less toxic one. Another one is farmers now plant a kind of crop which owns an ability to resist pests. From these two changes we can figure out that the number of bird won't decline in terms of the pesticide." P$ e2 [( h7 c8 o* t
& j3 c* M7 R& n9 }, OThus it can be inferred that the professor challenges the passage by giving reasons as to why she thinks that the population of bird won't decline.