[感想日志] 第一次写issue [复制链接]

寒轩草季
UID: 3629192

荣誉版主

Rank: 9 Rank: 9 Rank: 9

声望: 422
寄托币: 5713
注册时间: 2015-6-18
精华: 1
帖子: 1013

电梯直达

楼主

发表于 2017-10-13 22:51:44 |只看该作者 |倒序浏览

本帖最后由寒轩草季于 2017-10-13 23:12 编辑

Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear.

Given the increasing demands of the society and the limited financial capability of national governments, there are people arguing that governments should only fund scientific researches whose consequences are predictable, as for those research with unclear results, government should not fund them. In my opinion, whether governments should or not financially support scientific researches depends on the nature of the scientific researches rather than the clarity of the research results. More specifically, in terms of commercially fields and ethically controversial researches, government should not fund them, as for the theoretically researches, such as the development of international relations theory, governments should support them.

First, as for commercially fields, governments should not support these researches and should level them to corporations, even though the valuable technologies, such as the drone. Such projects should be funded by private companies, such as China’s Dajiang Corporation, which is a leading figure in developing and producing drone in the world. Concretely speaking, Dajiang has mature technologies and enough funding to maintain its development and research. Compared with governments, these robust corporations have sensitive feeling about market, profiting is relatively attainable for them. Moreover, it is also unfair for common taxpayer to afford the potential lose, especially in light of they even cannot receive any rewards if social corporations gain profits. In short, shouldering profits and loses by corporations themselves are more reasonable.

Second, in the field that might lead to ethically controversial disputes, governments should stay away from them. For instance, since the success of cloning technology in a sheep, the plan of cloning humans is on the horizon. Although such projects might bring a host of benefits for biology and health care, the potential consequences are still obscure for us right now. Put differently, we cannot afford the potential destructive results for the possible existing benefits.

Third, in terms of theoretically researches, even though the research results are not clear, governments still should fund them and make sure they have enough funding to conduct their researches. For example, with the rise of China and given the lack of Sinic international relations theory, it is reasonable for the Chinese government to support the development of the subject. Without theoretically support, it is hard for other countries to understand deeper about the deeper means of China’s foreign behaviour. Developing sinic international relations theory is necessary even though we are not sure about the result, because such projects would contribute Chinese people as well as other countries through dispel misgiving.

In conclusion, funding scientific research or not relies on the nature of the projects. As before-mentioned, if the projects are commercial and might violate ethical rules, government should turn its back on them, while on the fields of theoretically researches, such as international relation theory, government should support them with funding.

太累了，29分钟才写了470，本来以为30分钟500很容易，没想到这么难，我感觉我打字够快了啊，不过还得加强，继续努力

回想了一下，中间第二个例子需要改一下，应该找一个会普世影响人类的并且是政府还拿不准主意的，那啥克隆这个不太好，还是得改一下

相关帖子 Updated by 2024.12.02

回应
0

使用道具举报

sigtem
UID: 2169461

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 759
寄托币: 3203
注册时间: 2005-12-21
精华: 0
帖子: 116

沙发

发表于 2017-10-21 19:39:40 |只看该作者

本帖最后由 sigtem 于 2017-10-22 13:12 编辑

Given the increasing demands of the society and the limited financial capability of national governments, there are people arguing that governments should only fund scientific researches whose consequences are predictable, as for those research with unclear results, government should not fund them.这句话语法有问题，太长，缺乏连词。另外这里可以先举个简短例子，顺着原题的意思说，承认原题合理的一面，作为让步，以便后面欲扬先抑。例如，It is true that, unclear investment may severely burden the budgets of the govenment without obvious profits repaid, which may waste the public resources sometimes. For example, the financial support to a research on exploitation on Mars needs a lot of money and may not bring in short-term profits. This kind of support may entangle the government's budget and cause financial crisis especially for those governments of undeveloped areas. In my opinion, whether governments should or not financially support scientific researches depends on the nature of the scientific researches rather than the clarity of the research results. More specifically, in terms of commercially fields and ethically controversial researches, government should not fund them, as for the theoretically researches, such as the development of international relations theory, governments should support them.题目特指针对scientific research，应该主要指自然科学研究，而不是社会科学，而你提出international relations theory作为例证，下面还专门用一段话来讨论international relations theory，是不是有点偏题？

First, as for commercially fields, governments should not support these researches and should level them to corporations, even though the valuable technologies, such as the drone. Such (These) projects should be funded by private companies, such as China’s Dajiang Corporation, which is a leading figure in developing and producing drone in the world. Concretely speaking, Dajiang has mature technologies and enough funding to maintain its development and research. Compared with governments, these robust corporations have sensitive feeling about market, profiting is relatively attainable for them这句话又少了连词. Moreover, it is also unfair for common taxpayer to afford the potential lose, especially in light of they even cannot receive any rewards if social corporations gain profits. In short, shouldering profits and loses by corporations themselves are more reasonable. 无人机这个例子在论述中没有切中题目中的“consequences are unclear”，题目要你讨论是政府投资用于“结果不明确的科研”的情况，而无人机属于结果不明确的科研吗？就算是，你这段话里也没有说清楚它什么方面属于“结果不明确”，由此会给政府带来什么问题，你只是说了一下这是一种商业投资行为，导致的结果（例如你说的花了纳税人钱，不公平）仅仅是商业投资行为造成的，而不是它结果不明确造成的.

Second, in the field that might lead to ethically controversial disputes, governments should stay away from them. For instance, since the success of cloning technology in a sheep, the plan of cloning humans is on the horizon. Although such projects might bring a host of benefits for biology and health care, the potential consequences are still obscure for us right now. Put differently, we cannot afford the potential destructive results for the possible existing benefits.举了例子之后最好多分析一下这个例子跟论点啥关系。例如顺着你这个例子往下写：If the research on the techniques of cloning humans is financially supported by a government, the uncertain effect of this research on the society may bring in new challenges of laws and ethics that will be tackled by the government. The results may not be accepted by the majority of taxpayers around the country. Moreover, other imperative social issues that sharply need funds may not be addressed due to the limited government budgets.

这段话上来就举例子，看不出这段跟上段之间的逻辑关系是什么Third, in terms of theoretically researches, even though the research results are not clear, governments still should fund them and make sure they have enough funding to conduct their researches. For example, with the rise of China and given the lack of Sinic international relations theory, it is reasonable for the Chinese government to support the development of the subject这个subject指什么？. Without theoretically support, it is hard for other countries to understand deeper about the deeper 这里两个deeper啥意思？没看懂 means of China’s foreign behaviour. Developing sinic international relations theory is necessary even though we are not sure about the result, because such projects would contribute Chinese people as well as other countries through dispel misgiving.

In conclusion, funding scientific research or not relies on the nature of the projects. As before-mentioned, if the projects are commercial and might violate ethical rules, government should turn its back on them, while on the fields of theoretically researches, such as international relation theory, government should support them with funding.

另外提个建议，虽然版上很多习作里都用first, second, third等序数词作为段落开头引出观点，但我个人觉得这并不是最好的过渡方式，因为1、2、3之间的逻辑关系不明显。OG上给的高分范文和GRE阅读长文章都没有采用这种方式。一篇逻辑性强的文章，在每段开头可以简单提及上一段的内容然后自然地引出下文要讨论的内容，通常采用让步句、转折或者递进关系句子，这样能让段落之间逻辑层次更清晰，这才是GRE写作崇尚的。

【2025FALL】全站祈福已开放~~来领祈福章，求offer得offer

使用道具举报

sigtem
UID: 2169461

高级会员

Rank: 5 Rank: 5

声望: 759
寄托币: 3203
注册时间: 2005-12-21
精华: 0
帖子: 116

板凳

发表于 2017-10-22 12:13:39 |只看该作者

本帖最后由 sigtem 于 2017-10-22 13:13 编辑

我也写了一篇同样题目的文章，求回拍，谢谢~
也欢迎其他同学帮忙拍一拍

The statement indicates it is not proper for the government to financially support any scientific research without clear consequences in the future. Surely the government should not spend the limited funds from the nationwide taxpayers to any scientific research without profits expected, especially for the governments of those undeveloped or poor areas. For example, scientific research on astronomy as making exploitation on the Mars cannot bring in immediate profits to the residence who are struggling in financial difficulties, nor does it solve any social issues in the short run. Compared with the astronomy research on Mars, other social issues may be in sharper emergency that needs funds from the government, and will be beneficial to the people immdediately. However, if the government always makes profit-oriented decisions, there will be not a long-run investment on the scientific development. As a result, the government’s decision will be myopic. Whether a scientific research is worth of government’s funds should be analyzed from case to case. Generally, the government should fund the scientific research even though its consequence is not clear at presence, unless the scientific research may defy established moral standards or ethics.

Looking back to the development of technology in the history, there are few research experiences that at the beginning appear profitable or monetary as rebate in the near future. The practitioners involved in this kind of research usually had to struggle with difficulties not only in scientific development but also in short of money. The invention experiences of telephone, automobile, steam locomotive all got financial support from the government more or less. At first moment, their prospective consequences might not be clear, but after several failed trials, the inventors succeeded. These inventions have pushed our technology and living standards forward and play an important role in our daily life.

Not only the scientific research on inventions in our daily life but also some other momentous scientific research should be conducted or sponsored by the government, even though their prospective consequences are not clear. For example, the research on nuclear reaction, which needs pricy laboratory conditions and rigorous administration in case of unexpected disclosure, should be funded and performed by government. The consequences may not be clear at beginning since there would be a long way to go to get clear consequences whose value may not able to be measured by how much money it is worth. But the value of nuclear reaction research lies in the priceless profit it brings into the society, such as the techniques of nuclear power plant that generates a large amount of electricity and nuclear weapons that consolidate the national defense. But this clear consequence took decades after scientists’ initiative research on the transform relations between energy and mass. Without government’s funds, this research can hardly make great achievements.

Admittedly, although a lot of scientific research should be funded by the government, if the research may defy the morality standards or potentially result in ethical issues, the government should be careful before making a decision to support it. Cloning technique of human being is an example. Do we want to see an identical mother or father? Can parent clone a daughter at will and then kill her? Can children replicate dying parents who are younger than the children themselves? All these potential issues will cause challenges to the established legal system and disturb our morality standards. The government should be prudent before make a decision that whether funds the research.

In conclusion, the government should investigate the specific scientific research from case to case and judge whether it is necessary to finance it. Whether the consequence is clear should not be a decisive factor that influences the government’s decision. On the other hand, whether the consequence will potentially defy our morality standards should be taken into consideration seriously.

使用道具举报