Issue 49 关于是否限制学科发展 自己已经初步修改过了 求指导 另附自己的提纲 拜谢

2162319UID: 2323860

小弟第二篇习作,严重超时........
拜谢

正文:
      According to the speaker, restrictions should not be placed on scientific research and development. There is no denying fact that the restrictions would hinder the research . So the argument appears correct at the first glance. Nevertheless, I fundamentally disagree the statement for the reason that the speaker seems to fail to give an all-sided consideration.
      To begin with, government should place reasonable restrictions on scientific research in purpose of  protecting the public. Some of research that are dangerous or even harmful should be restricted, otherwise it may damage the benefits of public. For example, by doing searches on nuclear energy ,  scientists build nuclear power station which largely reduce the cost of electricity. However, it also lead to the nuclear weapon whose great destruction is far excellent than conventional weapon. The restrictions on such a research is very necessary because the nuclear weapon is so dangerous that it might destroy the whole world if widely used in the war. Another telling example involves the pesticide. The research which pursuit killing pests rapidly leads to effective pesticide. However, the poison in the effective pesticide is difficult to be decomposed. If government never controls the development,  the poison would finally damage the health of human.  As a matter of fact,  that is the reason why DDT , a very effective pesticide ,  is banned in many countries.
       On the other hand, unnecessary restrictions would prevent the scientific research from developing normally. Owing to the unnecessary hindrance, the public suffer for the reason that they could not benefit from the development that should have occurred.  If whether a research would gain money is treated as a standard, science would be choked in many fields because it appears "worthless". As a result, scientists might move to another field because they could not receive enough money. For example, some science like Vehicle Engineering would become very hot while Theoretical Physics which is not " worthful " in the view of the government attract few students. However, the government make a mistake that the "worthless" Theoretical Physics would benefits in a long term. In point of fact, Theoretical Physics is the basis of many fields including Vehicle Engineering. Vehicle Engineering could not develop rapidly without Theoretical Physics. Besides, if a unnecessary restriction is based on whether the science is useful,  it would also result in a hindrance. That is because the government fall into an error that the science which seems useless at present may be very useful in future. For supporting examples one need look no further than anatomy. When anatomy firstly come out, it seems useless. But anatomy is the basis of Modern surgery and we would loss plenty of lives without surgery.
        To sum up, whether government should place restrictions depends on the profit of the public. In essence, the function of government is to protect and maximize  the benefit of the public. So it is the duty of the government to think twice and make a careful decision about whether a science research would damage the advantage of the public. If it does, a restriction is necessary. If not, a hindrance should never be made.

提纲:
正: 政府应该对科学研究进行合理的限制，这样才可以保证社会上大部分人的利益,限制的目的是保护民众
科学家对核能（nuclear energy）的研究一方面铸就了核电站（nuclear power station）, 使得发电的成本大大降低；另一方面，却研究出来了核武器（nuclear weapons）杀伤力很强（max destruction）,远远超过常规武器（far excellent than conventional weapons ）。核武器有潜在的危险，如果政府不加管制,战争一旦爆发，使用核武器将会给人们带来巨大的灾难。
比如对农药的研究，现在的科学家可以研究出更有效的农药（pesticide）来**害虫（pests），农药的毒素难以被分解，如果政府不加管制，那么这些毒素（poison）会进入人的身体，危害人们的健康。DDT就是一个被禁止的例子

反: 对于科学发展的不当限制将会阻碍科学发展,不限制的目的也是为了公众利益
1、可能政府的目标会促进某些而阻碍某些发展,如果政府把科学研究是否盈利作为是否加以限制的标准,会使得没有直接经济利益的学科发展受阻.
2、 政府的判断可能出错,如果政府把科学研究是否有必要或者有价值作为是否加以限制的标准,学科的超前性使得有些当时看起来unnecessary的研究以后可能是worthful,例子:解剖学研究

结论:是否加以限制不能一概而论,从本质上来说,政府的功能就是保护公众的利益.无论是加以必要的限制还是让学科自由发展都是要使得公众利益最大化.所以需要给科学一个良好的自由的空间让其发展，但是在必要的时候要限制。

2162319UID: 2323860

反面论证第一点是从盈利(worthful)出发,第二点是从是否有用出发(useful)