issues69 政府对科研设不设限 不一边倒了

starshaneUID: 2616355

TOPIC: ISSUE69 - "Government should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development"
WORDS: 369
TIME: 00:45:00
DATE: 2010/3/29 15:52:02



政府应很少或者不限制科学研究和科学发展

以下是写作前的提纲，但实际上有的点没COVER到
1，让步，有时限制阻碍了科学发展，例子 哈维
2，不道德的研究，拿活人、犯人做实验
3，不利于国家战略方向的研究（没写），有损于国家利益社会安全的研究，思想上的（没写）

I am supportive that scientific research should be given respect and freedom, but I do not agree with the speaker's opinion that the government should place few restrictions on research, or even let the whole research be at the mercy of the researchers. Certain restrictions may hinder the development of science, but it is necessary for government to provide guidance for some kind of scientific researches or else they simply go awry.

Admittedly, in history cases in which government resisted scientific research and resulted in the lagging of development are abundant. For example, in 15th century scientists were curious to explore human body and find new cure to some disease, while anatomizing or dissection of dead human bodies was forbidden by the government. Scientists had to anatomize mice instead whose biological structure was of course totally different from that of human. Little had been discovered until Harvey, who secretly conducted dissection on the death, found the structure of human heart and the circulation of blood inside body in 1628, thus laid the scientific foundation of modern biology and physic. Some restrictions of government are out of contemporary prejudice or religious superstition and should be eliminated quickly.

However, even if some traditional restrictions were untenable now, some restrictions still have to persist in order to secure the basic ethic standard in scientific research. Sometimes scientists are so desperate to reach new knowledge that they abandon common moral ethics.
During the World War 2 when Japan invaded and occupied northern China, secret institutions had been set up by the military agency to conduct inhuman scientific experiment on living Chinese prisoners or innocent civilians. The same tragedy happened in Portland simultaneously, with German Nazi as the murderer. Japanese and German scientists intended to find methods that could kill people more effectively. Should such atrocity of demoralization not be restricted in our civilized world now? Unfortunately, inhuman researches still exist, especially in some medication companies where research is conducted on living creatures, even humans. Government should actively place restrictions on such research as soon as possible.

Moreover, few restrictions on researches that are potentially hazardous to national interests or the welfare of the society can mean disaster. By potentially hazardous, I refer to researches aimed at the development of the hacking techniques against government or corporation data base and websites, of the massive destruction weapons, etc. Recently I read a piece of news that a hacker group in U.S. managed to bilk two hundred million dollar by intruding into corporate data base and stole information of 4000 thousand credit cards, and the leader of this group is now arrested and sentenced to 20 years in jail. Perhaps that is not the worst. Some bedlamites are now devoted to producing massive destructive weapons that could bring the whole planet to an end. How could the government stand away from those dangerous researches in a world pledging for peace? Certainly government should forbid such researches in legal form and place restrictions on the accessibility of resources that could be utilized to conduct hazardous researches.

(Furthermore, restrictions on researches do not necessarily stunt the development of science, they just define the boundary and base line of it——ethical, legal, political and so on. Inside the boundary, scientists may employ any methods as they please. Nowadays many researches are guided and conducted under strict restrictions or even directly by official institution, like Chinese Academy of Science or NATO, and they are consistently making fruitful contributions to the society. Thus I concluded that there is little correlation between restrictions on research and development of science.
)
囧了……我既然写了“限制确实阻碍科学发展”作为让步，是不该再写“限制其实不大阻碍科学让步”的 ……否则又回归一边倒的倾向了
但是看到题目时就有点纳闷，government should place few restrictions on scientific development，其中隐含的逻辑就是限制一定会阻碍科学发展，这个太绝对了，得说两句……



In sum, although some restrictions has stunted the development of science, it does not detract the importance for government to impose restrictions on scientific research. Restrictions can remind scientists of basic scientific ethics, laws and the welfare of the world so that they would not thread on humanity or commit illegal wrongdoings.

algabraUID: 2748722

1# starshane

紫色 优点
红色 错误
蓝色 评注
绿色 疑问


政府应很少或者不限制科学研究和科学发展

以下是写作前的提纲，但实际上有的点没COVER到
1，让步，有时限制阻碍了科学发展，例子 哈维
2，不道德的研究，拿活人、犯人做实验
3，不利于国家战略方向的研究（没写），有损于国家利益社会安全的研究，思想上的（没写）

I am supportive that scientific research should be given respect and freedom, but I do not agree with the speaker's opinion that the government should place few restrictions on research, or even let the whole research be at the mercy of the researchers. Certain restrictions may hinder the development of science, but it is necessary for government to provide guidance for some kind of scientific researches or else they simply go awry.

Admittedly, in history cases in which government resisted scientific research and resulted in the lagging of development are abundant. For example, in 15th century scientists were curious to explore human body and find（found） new cure to some disease, while anatomizing or dissection of dead human bodies was forbidden by the government. （这里可以加个过渡，比如as a result 之类） Scientists had to anatomize mice instead whose biological structure was of course totally different from that of human. Little had been discovered until Harvey, who secretly conducted dissection on the death, found the structure of human heart and the circulation of blood inside body in 1628, thus laid the scientific foundation of modern biology and physic. Some restrictions of government are out of contemporary prejudice or religious（我觉得用这个词形容superstition不大好，中外思维有差别） superstition and should be eliminated quickly. （这个观点很好，明确指出哪些地方不需要政府限制）

However, even if some traditional restrictions were untenable now, some restrictions still have to persist in order to secure the basic ethic standard in scientific research. Sometimes scientists are so desperate to reach（用for就行啦） new knowledge that they abandon common moral ethics.
During the World War 2 when Japan invaded and occupied northern China, secret institutions had been set up by the military agency to conduct inhuman scientific experiments on living Chinese prisoners or innocent civilians. The same tragedy happened in Portland simultaneously, with German Nazi as the murderer. Japanese and German scientists intended to find methods that could kill people more effectively. Should such atrocity of demoralization not be restricted in our civilized world now? Unfortunately, inhuman researches still exist, especially in some medication companies where research is conducted on living creatures, even humans.（我不赞同这句话，因为生产药物总要用到人体的，这些人体实验也是遵循严格规定的，不能算是不道德的实验） Government should actively place restrictions on such research as soon as possible.

Moreover, few restrictions on researches that are potentially hazardous to national interests or the welfare of the society can mean disaster. By potentially hazardous, I refer to researches aimed at the development of the hacking techniques against government or corporation data base and websites, of the massive destruction weapons, etc. Recently I read a piece of news that a hacker group in U.S. managed to bilk two hundred million dollar by intruding into corporate data base and stole information of 4000 thousand（4000 000张？） credit cards, and the leader of this group is now arrested and sentenced to 20 years in jail. Perhaps that is not the worst. Some bedlamites are now devoted to producing massive destructive weapons that could bring the whole planet to an end. How could the government stand away from those dangerous researches in a world pledging for peace? Certainly government should forbid such researches in legal form and place restrictions on the accessibility of resources that could be utilized to conduct hazardous researches.  （本段和上段相比，表达了什么不同的意思吗？我不大明白...)

(Furthermore, restrictions on researches do not necessarily stunt the development of science, they just define the boundary and base line of it——ethical, legal, political and so on. Inside the boundary, scientists may employ any methods as they please. Nowadays many researches are guided and conducted under strict restrictions or even directly by official institution, like Chinese Academy of Science or NATO, and they are consistently making fruitful contributions to the society. Thus I concluded that there is little correlation between restrictions on research and development of science. little correlation是和你的B1矛盾了... 另外，如果不限制，说不定科学家们的研究进步得更快呢？而且那两个例子可以说的更详细些吗？我不大知道这两个组织...
)
囧了……我既然写了“限制确实阻碍科学发展”作为让步，是不该再写“限制其实不大阻碍科学让步”的 ……否则又回归一边倒的倾向了
但是看到题目时就有点纳闷，government should place few restrictions on scientific development，其中隐含的逻辑就是限制一定会阻碍科学发展，这个太绝对了，得说两句……



In sum, although some restrictions has stunted the development of science, it does not detract the importance for government to impose restrictions on scientific research. Restrictions can remind scientists of basic scientific ethics, laws and the welfare of the world so that they would not thread on humanity or commit illegal wrongdoings.

总体来说，楼主的语言和逻辑都不错的，共勉共勉~

starshaneUID: 2616355

2# algabra

1# starshane 紫色 优点 红色 错误 蓝色 评注 绿色 疑问 政府应很少或者不限制科学研究和科学发展 以下是写作前的提纲，但实际上有的点没COVER到 1，让步，有时限制阻碍了科学发展，例子 哈维 2，不道德的研究，拿活人、犯人做实验 3，不利于国家战略方向的研究（没写），有损于国家利益社会安全的研究，思想上的（没写） I am supportive that scientific research should be given respect and freedom, but I do not agree with the speaker's opinion that the government should place few restrictions on research, or even let the whole research be at the mercy of the researchers. Certain restrictions may hinder the development of science, but it is necessary for government to provide guidance for some kind of scientific researches or else they simply go awry. Admittedly, in history cases in which government resisted scientific research and resulted in the lagging of development are abundant. For example, in 15th century scientists were curious to explore human body and find（found） new cure to some disease, while anatomizing or dissection of dead human bodies was forbidden by the government. （这里可以加个过渡，比如as a result 之类） Scientists had to anatomize mice instead whose biological structure was of course totally different from that of human. Little had been discovered until Harvey, who secretly conducted dissection on the death, found the structure of human heart and the circulation of blood inside body in 1628, thus laid the scientific foundation of modern biology and physic. Some restrictions of government are out of contemporary prejudice or religious（我觉得用这个词形容superstition不大好，中外思维有差别） superstition and should be eliminated quickly. （这个观点很好，明确指出哪些地方不需要政府限制） However, even if some traditional restrictions were untenable now, some restrictions still have to persist in order to secure the basic ethic standard in scientific research. Sometimes scientists are so desperate to reach（用for就行啦） new knowledge that they abandon common moral ethics. During the World War 2 when Japan invaded and occupied northern China, secret institutions had been set up by the military agency to conduct inhuman scientific experiments on living Chinese prisoners or innocent civilians. The same tragedy happened in Portland simultaneously, with German Nazi as the murderer. Japanese and German scientists intended to find methods that could kill people more effectively. Should such atrocity of demoralization not be restricted in our civilized world now? Unfortunately, inhuman researches still exist, especially in some medication companies where research is conducted on living creatures, even humans.（我不赞同这句话，因为生产药物总要用到人体的，这些人体实验也是遵循严格规定的，不能算是不道德的实验） Government should actively place restrictions on such research as soon as possible. on living humans without their concents.这样呢？ Moreover, few restrictions on researches that are potentially hazardous to national interests or the welfare of the society can mean disaster. By potentially hazardous, I refer to researches aimed at the development of the hacking techniques against government or corporation data base and websites, of the massive destruction weapons, etc. Recently I read a piece of news that a hacker group in U.S. managed to bilk two hundred million dollar by intruding into corporate data base and stole information of 4000 thousand（4000 000张？） credit cards, and the leader of this group is now arrested and sentenced to 20 years in jail. Perhaps that is not the worst. Some bedlamites are now devoted to producing massive destructive weapons that could bring the whole planet to an end. How could the government stand away from those dangerous researches in a world pledging for peace? Certainly government should forbid such researches in legal form and place restrictions on the accessibility of resources that could be utilized to conduct hazardous researches.  （本段和上段相比，表达了什么不同的意思吗？我不大明白...) 见提纲……啊你没看懂说明我没写清楚……悲哀…… (Furthermore, restrictions on researches do not necessarily stunt the development of science, they just define the boundary and base line of it——ethical, legal, political and so on. Inside the boundary, scientists may employ any methods as they please. Nowadays many researches are guided and conducted under strict restrictions or even directly by official institution, like Chinese Academy of Science or NATO, and they are consistently making fruitful contributions to the society. Thus I concluded that there is little correlation between restrictions on research and development of science. little correlation是和你的B1矛盾了... 另外，如果不限制，说不定科学家们的研究进步得更快呢？而且那两个例子可以说的更详细些吗？我不大知道这两个组织... ) 囧了……我既然写了“限制确实阻碍科学发展”作为让步，是不该再写“限制其实不大阻碍科学让步”的 ……否则又回归一边倒的倾向了 但是看到题目时就有点纳闷，government should place few restrictions on scientific development，其中隐含的逻辑就是限制一定会阻碍科学发展，这个太绝对了，得说两句…… 对的，这段就是和B1矛盾的，所以括号括起来了，考场上不会写…… 组织有个写错了……应该是NASA……NATO是北约……狂汗 前一个是中科院。两个都只是提了下没举例子，要举的话也容易 这段的意思是很多在政府限制甚至领导下的科研都出了丰厚成果，所以不能说限制必然阻碍科学发展 In sum, although some restrictions has stunted the development of science, it does not detract the importance for government to impose restrictions on scientific research. Restrictions can remind scientists of basic scientific ethics, laws and the welfare of the world so that they would not thread on humanity or commit illegal wrongdoings. 总体来说，楼主的语言和逻辑都不错的，共勉共勉~

谢谢谢谢，有啥需要回拍的么？