【Big Fish】3月8日Issue69-By Bruce

cloudwind-greUID: 2462220

"Government should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development."

    Recently, in many countries, especially in the developed nations where scientific research is popular, some mavens point out that the government' supervision and restrication on their researches is more and more serious, thereby resulting in the loss of their freedom. In fact, whether government should place restrications on scientific is a long debate. Some opponents believe that freedom is essential for research simply due to the fact that the officials, who is considered to be lack of scientific background, cannot understant the value of their works. However, Contrary to the dissenters' ideas are the viewpoints of some advocators, who hold the standpoints that government much superintend and manage the scientists in their nations because some wicked researcher, especially those work for the insurgent army, may create fatal weapons and bring jeopardy to their nations.

    It is the objectors' idea that restrictions on scientific will lead to the loss of freedom of scientist. Some experts believe that the stall in government fail to understand science as profoundly as them. Therefore, what kind of science they should do and what kinds of research is potential valuable in the future should decide by themselves instead of the laier officials. One apparent example is the invention of combustion engine, which was believed to be impossible to be invented and worthless even it was made one century ago when the steam engine dominated the engine market. At that time, seldom fund and support can be obtained by the researcher studing combustion engine for the neglection of government. Since mature stream engines can satisfy normal demand at that time, combustion engine was almost entirely forgot by the government. However, with the discovery of more and more petroleum and the awareness of stream engine's defects, combustion engines eventually substituted stream engine, indicating the initial wrong decision of the government at that time.

    Nevertheless, on the negative side of the spectrum is the opinion of some advocators, who consider the restriction and supervision of the government is indispensable. It is the possible peril that resulting the qualm about the complete freedom of scientists. History is filled with this kind of danger like some fatal weapon, contagious virus and so on. Most of them were confidentially created by some rebellious researchers. The more free atmosphere in one country, the more eaily for them to invent those kinds of harmful weapons.  On the other hand, under appropriate supervision and control, those detrimental science results can be exploited safely. Take the atomic energy as an instance, whether it is used suitable or not strongly determine their value.

    In consequence, government should take special attention in scienetific research, Restriction is necessary but the degree of restriction is still a big challenge for the government. Both too strong or too weak restriction on scientific would impede the development of science.

    In summary, The benefit of freedom of sciencitists and the danger of complete freedom of researchers cause the leader to ponder which kinds of scientific research need to restrict and how to manage them.  Understanding the scarcity of scientific knowledge and the danger of possible jeapardy of some fatal research is necessary for the government.


这是我在这个小组里写的第一编issue作文哦,欢迎大家猛拍......

dgxy08UID: 2599486

1Recently, in many countries, especially in the developed nations where scientific research is popular, some mavens point out that the government' supervision and restrictions on their researches is more and more serious, thereby resulting in the loss of their freedom. In fact, whether government should place restrictions on scientific is a long debate. Some opponents believe that freedom is essential for research simply due to the fact that the officials, who are considered to be lack of scientific background, cannot understand the value of their works. However, Contrary to the dissenters' ideas are the viewpoints of some advocators, who hold the standpoints that government much superintend and manage the scientists in their nations because some wicked researcher, especially those work for the insurgent army, may create fatal weapons and bring jeopardy to their nations.(你自己的观点呢？怎么都是其他人说，你呢?)
   2 It is the objectors' idea that restrictions on scientific will lead to the loss of freedom of scientist. Some experts believe that the stall in government fail to understand science as profoundly as them. Therefore, what kind of science they should do and what kinds of research is potential valuable in the future should decide by themselves instead of the lazier officials. One apparent example is the invention of combustion engine, which was believed to be impossible to be invented and worthless even it was made one century ago when the steam engine dominated the engine market. At that time, seldom fund and support can be obtained by the researcher studying combustion engine for the neglect of government. Since mature stream engines can satisfy normal demand at that time, combustion engine was almost entirely forgotten by the government. However, with the discovery of more and more petroleum and the awareness of stream engine's defects, combustion engines eventually substituted stream engine, indicating the initial wrong decision of the government at that time.
   3 Nevertheless, on the negative side of the spectrum is the opinion of some advocators, who consider the restriction and supervision of the government is indispensable. It is the possible peril that resulting the qualm about the complete freedom of scientists. ??History is filled with this kind of danger like some fatal weapon, contagious virus and so on. Most of them were confidentially created by some rebellious researchers. The more free atmosphere in one country, the more eaily for them to invent those kinds of harmful weapons.  On the other hand, under appropriate supervision and control, those detrimental science results can be exploited safely. Take the atomic energy as an instance, whether it is used suitable or not strongly determine their value.
  4  In consequence, government should take special attention in scienetific research, Restriction is necessary but the degree of restriction is still a big challenge for the government. Both too strong or too weak restriction on scientific would impede the development of science.
5   In summary, The benefit of freedom of sciencitists and the danger of complete freedom of researchers cause the leader to ponder which kinds of scientific research need to restrict and how to manage them.  Understanding the scarcity of scientific knowledge and the danger of possible jeapardy
of some fatal research is necessary for the government.
本文在第一段没有提出自己的观点，并且是在第四段总结提出自己的观点，但是论证的2,3 只是说明政府干涉是有必要的，但没有论证过分干涉的问题。第四段应该作为主题句在第一段中出现，从而省去第四段。建议楼主看看范文。如有批评错误之处，还望海涵！

cloudwind-greUID: 2462220

呵呵,是啊,这个文章思路写得有点乱, Both too strong or too weak 这一点的确是忽略了. THANK YOU FOR YOUR CRITICISM