Issue31 强烈求拍！！谢谢大家

weiziranUID: 2721751

题目：ISSUE 31 - "Money spent on research is almost always a good investment, even when the results of that research are controversial."

字数：419
用时：0:45:00
日期：2010-3-

In this issue,
the author assets that even when the results of that reaserch are controversial money spent on research is almost always a good investment. Indeed, spending money on research that is benefical to human beings day-to-day life is almost a good investment.. However, the authors claims that, this is always a good investment, i cannot agree. Some reseach that have the immediate impact on human's lives that should be focused on, and others should be put a less emphasis.

At first, I would like to carify the definition of what is a good investment. I personally hold the opinion that good investment is that colsely ralated to human beings' lives and if money is spent on researh that are unrelated on human's lives would be suspended or terminated. Consider one example, In 1960s,
Reagan administration would ever implent the Star War plan and therefore the government put a large amount of money on improving some advance equipments such as spaceship, rather than regulating the disturbence in some cities such as NewYork where had high criminal rate. As a result, government cannot be supportive by their civilians and hence the Star War plan had to be suspened in a half way, even worse, a large number of high school students broke the law or becoming homeless becase of depravity of governing . Consequently,
to government, they should put money on enhancing the the socity of security and walform that closely related to human beings' lives.

  

Secondly, the definition of a good investment is that what has a relation with people's lives in reality. In other words, money spend on people's pragmatic lives is good investment. For example, Iraq and iron, these two contries had a long and brilliant civilization and there were a large number of ancient magnificient building or precious materials, unfortunately, these two contries have been always suffering in war so these ancient valuable heritage are largely destroyed so their government are now facing a necessitous problem is that should they use their limited moeny whether on rebuilding these constructions or improving their people's real lives? The answer is clearly the latter, that they should give top priority to cost their money on amolirate people’s

basic live cnditions or to consolidate their military defensive ablility.
in contrast , if their government put finit money on rebuding and they would be criticised.

Consequently, the more money is spent on enhacing people practical lives, the less

controversial issues would be produced..

Thirdly, I adoubt the accuracy of a word “always” that author used in the topic. As far as Iknown that a certain of investment that is deterious while it spent on research.Consider, for instance, a reseach that was ever focus on cloning animal embryo and then further focus on human beings. When some reseachers were going to further develope this so-called potential programs but were frustrated because of lack of finacial support by government. A majority of governers who believed that this program have a gloomy future and therefore who so much agreed with the human protectionists as they tended to protect their own fame and profit. Accordingly, not all research should be financialed, it is undeserve for government to spent money on butressing an controversial reseach let alone the result of research is probably harmful to humans.

At last, it is vague that who is playing the role that is being controverted, whether the people in general or criticts？If after several practical experiments to illustrate the result of research is confilict with the general people’s walfare but merely satisfied minorities, then it is unworthy to plunge our money in research. On the other hand, if the result of reseach can appeal the majorities but refused by several critics, it is possibly for us to invest money on this reseach. For that reason, different proportion of people who are surpportive or rebuted research could eventually determinate whether money spent or not.

In sum, I fundamantally disagree with speaker’s assertion almost based on three respects, specificly speaking, is that the accuracy of using word of “always”, how to exactly make definition of good investment, and who is contoverting. So money spent on research that is benneficial for people and booming general people living standard is a good investment.