【hawk】7月27日任务——issue69

谦行天下UID: 2797557

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

第一次互改顺序：-（后改前）
9-7-1-8-3-10-14-11-6

第二次互改书序：-（后改前）
6-11-14-10-3-8-1-7-9
3 仅交作文，未参加互改，建议补交作业的5代替3~~
请假者：[4] 和[5]
未请假者：[2] rose 和[6]mjg870923

hwslqcUID: 2861597

TOPIC: ISSUE69 - "Government should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development"
WORDS: 568
TIME: 00:58:07
DATE: 2010-7-27 16:03:12

As we known, the basic development of the society is always based on the development of science. So I partly degree with the notion that government should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development. The problem between science and government is much more complicated. Whether to restrict, how to restrict, when to restrict and the degree of restrict should all based on the substance of the research and the situation of the society.

The purpose of science is to explore the unknown, which will lead to the development of the human beings. So government, which is often think about things from narrow aspects, especially when it is influence by the religious or other factors, should never ever try to control
the scientific research for their own profits. The history always telling vivid stories about the past and leading people to think about what is actually right. So let look at what happen in the Middle Ages. At that time government is very influenced by the religion and it banned one of the most effect ways to learn about our bodies, the dissection of human beings. Until the Revival of Literature, Vesalius take the risk to dissect a body. It is a venture, but it rewarded. It first time proved the right of the assumption of blood circulation. Without the restriction of the government, the medicine research would be done much earlier.

However, this unrestraint is not absolutely at any situation. The scientific research is sometimes too far from the era it belongs to. Take cloning human beings, which is also famous in medicine, as an example. The moral and ethical problem is not solved yet. So the government is doing the right things to place restriction on the research of clone human beings. As none of us would like to see another "me" in front of us after we week up in one morning. It is obviously that without the restriction the society would be in chaos. Think about a
world which contains hundreds of you and no one can actually distinguish which of you could be defined as "you", they are all the same even in DNA. Not mentioned some scientific research has nothing about research at all. The 2010 Oscar's best documentary prize winner, The Cove, reveals the fact of the slaughter of dolphins in TaiDi, Japan. And such human less slaughter is covered by the shell of scientific research. In these situation, government should act as soon as possible.

And the difference between the different research substance and other factors should be considered. Using the research of clone human beings again. I do accept the opinion that government should place restriction on this research now. However, it should also be different as time goes by. Under the moral system we built today, it is great idea to ban clone human beings. Then what will happen if we think about this research under the moral system hundreds years later. Maybe we will just get the same result as we focus on the dissection under the moral system today. And to the research like the slaughter happened in Japan, it should be stopped as soon as possible in any situation.

To sum up. Without restriction, researches may cause great disaster, without permissibility, science can hardly step forward. This issue is complicated which hanging on the substance of the research and the situation of the society.

谦行天下UID: 2797557

From my observation, government are putting a lot of effort in supporting the development of most scientific research, even some researches seem to have no benefit immediately. Few restrictions on scientific research and development can inspire scientists’ potential, while accumulating evidence suggests that some laws can ensure the competition evenhandedly and some forbidden application of scientific results ensures human safety.

Nowadays, the government is investing a myriad of money to prosper the scientific research instead of restricting on them. So many technologies and inventions have been created due to the support and incentive of government. For example, the first compute which was invented for calculating the moving orbit of missiles by University of Pennsylvania. Space technology cost a lot, like sending people to the moon, launching the satellites to the Mars. Although these investments have no striking benefits close to our eyes, the potential of outer space is imponderable. Not mention the supporting for researches of incurable diseases. In resent years, the phenomena that talents within similar fields are attracted to AIDS and cancer researches substantiate that the government is increasing the financial aids to these fields. Just a few weeks ago, two scientists groups discovered a kind of antibody that blocks 90% HIV strains antibody. This discovery increases our optimism to conquer the HIV. Thus, the government no restriction but encouraging actions impels a splendid scientific world.

However, in order to ensure the populace’s safety, protect one nation’s safety and guarantee equal competition, laws must be legislated and restrictions need to be established. First, in the aspect of people’s safety, nuclear weapons and atom bombs are required to be carefully treated. The world is against the North Korea to develop nuclear weapon because the world afraid that North Korea is suspicious to use the power to break the peace and threaten people’s life. Second, in a nation’s safety, the researches in national defence pertaining to state secrets must be kept confidential. The government forbids the insiders to disclose secret information. Third, for the equality of competition, the patent protection for technology is a typical example. Laws protect patent resulting in accelerating the development of technology and the glory of the economy. But everyone may make mistake, so does the government. Government’s restrictions may impede the proceeding of science. In the medieval, the Pope forbade researcher from dissecting cadavers, which truly cramped the development of studies of human anatomy and physiology.

In conclusion, some reasonable restrictions must be put into force undoubtedly. The development of scientific researches needs support by the government. Without the investment, it can’t survive nowadays. The big investments prosper science.

================================================
第一次自改文
to 08 weltea
你的点评很到位，我不明白如何使文章更凝聚。
看我再修炼修炼
From my observation, government are putting a lot of effort in supporting the development of most scientific research, even some research seems to have no benefit immediately. Few restrictions on scientific research and development can inspire scientists’ potential, while accumulating evidence suggests that some laws can ensure the competition evenhandedly and some forbidden application of scientific results reduce the menace to human safety.

Nowadays, the government is investing a myriad of money to prosper the scientific research instead of restricting on them. So many technologies and inventions have been created due to the support and incentive of government. For example, the first computer was invented for calculating the trajectory of missiles by University of Pennsylvania. Space technology like sending people to the moon and launching the satellites to the Mars cost a lot. Although these investments have no striking benefits close to our eyes, the potential of outer space is imponderable, like alien lives, water resources, endless space and so forth. Not mention the supporting for researches of incurable diseases. In recent years, the phenomena that talents within similar fields are attracted to AIDS and cancer research substantiate that the government is increasing the financial aids to these fields. Just a few weeks ago, two groups of scientists discovered a kind of antibody that blocks 90% HIV strains. This discovery increases our optimism to conquer the HIV. Thus, the government’s not restricting but encouraging actions impels a splendid scientific world.

However, in order to ensure the populace’s safety, protect a nation’s safety and guarantee equal competition, laws must be legislated and restrictions need to be established. First, in the aspect of people’s safety, nuclear weapons and atom bombs are required to be carefully treated. The world is against North Korea to develop nuclear weapon because the world worried that North Korea may use the power to break the world’s peace and threaten people’s life. Second, for a nation’s safety concern, the researches in national defense pertaining to state secrets must be kept confidential. The government forbids the insiders to disclose secret information. Third, for the equality of competition, the patent protection for technology is a typical example. Laws protect patent result in accelerating the development of technology and the glory of the economy. But everyone may make mistake, so does the government. Government’s restrictions may impede the proceeding of science. In the medieval, the Pope forbade researchers from dissecting cadavers, which truly cramped the development of studies of human anatomy and physiology.

In conclusion, some reasonable restrictions must be put into force undoubtedly. The development of scientific researches needs support by the government. Without the investment, it can’t survive nowadays. The big investments prosper science.

hwslqcUID: 2861597

题目：ISSUE69 - "Government should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development"

I cannot agree with issue completely, because the definition of scientific research and development is not clearly. The research and development has many uses. So if government could control the uses, the research and development is helpful.(如果government 能够控制use, 那么r和d 就是有用的?这句话不知道你自己有没有读过…作为topic sentence第一主题不够明确,第二逻辑上也有欠缺思考.如果不能控制就都有害?控制了就一定有帮助?)

First of all, the research and development lead makes(make life more xxx, lead life to xx自己选吧) life more convenient. I(这里加个I什么意思?) Science change our life in many ways. Such as the internet, computer and telephone are the great invention .People could communicate with everyone from everywhere and know the news very quickly. Government should support and encourage the science in those areas. The fund of research and development is very high(你是要表达做这些研究需要大量资金?) and the only way to solving the problem is the help from the government.
本段的中心论点是:有些科学需要得到政府的支持.但是事例和逻辑推理都略显匮乏.事例(电脑和电话)没能展开来说明,为什么他们需要政府支持?支持是不是就不限制?最好再考虑的详细一点.

On the contrary, the research and development also need to be restricted in some area. Set clone as an example, if the clone technical used to clone an organ or something like that the technology is meaningful(有意义的?有更好的么?比如beneficial). The clone solved many problems in medical and it will save a great count of people's life. But if the clone used to clone the human being it is forbidden(最好和上文的meaningful相对应). Because cloning human beings contrary to the standards of ethics and morality. And nuclear technology is another example. Nuclear technology is a mysterious(用秘密来形容?这个本文主题没关系吧?) thing. Until now people cannot control it perfectly. If the nuclear technology used in energy area it will save a lot of resource and more efficiency. But the nuclear weapon is very dangerous for human. The horrible power could destroy the earth immediately. So the nuclear must under the control of government, the government need to restriction(这个是名词…) on nuclear research and development.
本段逻辑上不错,但是两个例子都是烂大街的.如果有更好的替换就好了.

In addition, sometimes the restriction from the government also stunts the development of human(human的development?是人类的科技或者文化会比较好吧.). In the middle age of Europe, the government treats the anatomy as heterodoxy(不是视作异端,是视作异端的行为…). The anatomy is forbidden in Europe but the Galen research the animal and makes the animal experiment(这个例子和本段的论点是相反的,除非是树立靶子,否则别举这个例子.). The anatomy and medicine develop slowly at that time. If the government broke free from religion and support the anatomy, maybe it will save many people's life.

In the nutshell, weather the government should place restrictions on scientific research and development need to be discussed. Just restrict or support is neither a good choice. The government should support the area which is beneficial and restrict the dangerous or harmful one

整体的逻辑是正反正,这没问题.但是段落之间的联系和全文整体的观点都有需要改进的地方.语言方面也需要多读一些范文.然后用例子的时候在准确一点,展开一点.
第一次写嘛,总是这样的. 一起加油吧~

谦行天下UID: 2797557

改【7】HYTHYTHYT
Wrong
New words to me
Good Expression
My comment and Questions

What is the scientific research intended for? To improve people's life standard【用复数】 and to make all the human being【用复数】 enjoy science-related convinients and benifits, I think, are one of the best answers. In my opinion, it is such criteria for making judgements: whether or not, government should place restricions on scientific research and development. We cannot make a sweeping彻底地 statement about this question, since it depends on different situations.

In some cases, government should not tamper too much with progress of science, if not, it will bring about misguiding scientific progress into improper direction[复数], or even encumber headway in science and therefore hamper advance of the whole society. Some historical events have proved this saying. Charles Robert Darwin was an[a] very[delete] famous English naturalist who claimed that all scientific process, which he called natural selection,[我觉得这个表述需要改一下嘞] resulting in braching【你是说分支的意思么？如果是那你就拼错了】 pattern of evolution. Unfortunately, in that era, all the society was controled by Christian church, including the rulling[ruling] class. They treated this theory totally as a freak, labeling heterodox thought on it. As time went by, it turned out Darwin was right and it was then government and religious leader【复数】 who impeded science, and society moving ahead我觉得你这的表述也不太对，你的意思是说（主语）Impeded society's moving steps 么，这句语法有误！. And so it was the case with Nicolaus Copemicus, who was a Renaissance astronomer and the first people[person] to formulate a comprehensive heliocentric cosmology. This theory displaced the statement that Catholic church belived in: Earth was the center of the universe, and therefore was rejected by the government under the control of religion. And here is another example. In Christian Europe, with the collapse of Roman imperial authority, the study of dissection became localised[?这个是“使局限化”？如果是，那么你的意思好像说反了] because of religious government, which was obstructive to the development of anatomy.

From all the typical cases mentioned above, we can find out that government may be not wise enough to set restrictions for some particular reasons. A religion-controlled government evaluated new scientific theories or reserches from a religious view,whose benchmark is whether fit for the dogma, not the fact. If such government's【笔误】 will dominates【will 后面用动词原形】 science, it will definitely unfavourable for human advancement in both science and society.
是不是就是说如果government用fact做benchmark的话就不会restrict science了？

However, not interfering too much doesn't mean never stepping into. Everything has two sides, containing science. Science can be benifical to human beings and also can ba[be] fatal to us, so in this situation【delete】 we need government to supervise in an appropriate way. Should we do everything that our science and technology can achieve? Here are some big events in history and you will find out the answer. From 1932 until 1972, the US public Health Service conducted a study in which 399 impoverished blask[black] men diagnosed with syphills[syphilis] were monitored to record the natural history of that disease. This study was controversial for reasons concerning ethical standards, primarily bacause investigators rejected to heal patients appropriately after the 1940s validation of penicillin therapy as an effective cure for the disease. This is the notorious scandal, Tuskegee Study. Although the stude of syphill's natural history was helpful to treat this disease, it really crossed the line of ethics at the expense of letting almost 400 people die unfeelinly. If government had basic interdance[?] to the research, such villainous罪恶的 event shouldn't have happened. As for embryonic stem cell research, it also required government's interdance by reason of likelihood going against basic ethics.这个论点太vague，寥寥几句没有说服力！

Without supervision from government to scientific research, some scientists may focus merely on their own works, regardless of contravention of the moral, and even do something baleful有害的 to the public. Especially in our time,possessing advanced technology and refined apparatuses,like nuclear weapon, clone technic, chemical and biological weapons, etc if【貌似应该另起一句了】 one of them is out of control, the whole human beings may be decimated,似乎有点夸张了 bringing about the most terrible catastrophe.

On one hand, with too much interference to scientific development, science may get into the bog and become stagnant, and on the other, without any supervision to scientific progress, it may  turn into a cold-blooded killer and result in fatal calamity. So what should we do? I think is to find the balance between two sides and take advantage of science to establish our society more modernized.

改了一些小问题，学了不少单词~~~
文章构架有逻辑性，稍稍注意语言！

================改8号weltea===========

改08号
标点符号错误
单词拼写错误
In modern society, no one will doubt thatscientific research is the main thruster which drives our society forward.Freedom and tolerance are necessary for the fast development of all research.Thus, the proposal of this topic that our government should impose restrictionsas few as possible on scientific research and development seems reasonable atfirst glance. Nonetheless, a mature and rational government should neverneglect the significance and inevitable of supervising and guiding of researchactivities.

Indeed, liberal research environment willpromote the scientific development, while over restricting will stifle anyfurther progress. There are mainly two means for doing research, one is tosummary and rediscovery existing knowledge, another is to explore untappedareas. Unreasonable restrictions will impede both paths and thus slow down thescientific progress. For example, to the existing knowledge, if our governmentcompletely eradicate the smallpox virus for the safety concern, there will beno chance for scientists, who are struggling for the cure of AIDS, to gethelpful knowledge from this deadly virus which is very similar to HIV virususing cutting edge technologies; and to the new areas, if the governmentscenturies ago insisted that human anatomy is illegal, we will never be able toappreciate the huge advancement of medical science. From this point of view,unreasonable restrictions should be abolished and long existed restrictionsshould also be re-evaluated and updated as the development of society.

On the other hand, however, modest andreasonable regulations are also indispensable, for the spread of sensitive anddangerous technologies will seriously damage the safety of human all over theworld. In the same case of smallpox virus, and of course other lethal virus,the attributes of these tiny creatures make the research involving themextremely dangerous as a small leak of them will cause disasters killinginnumerable people. Thus it is absolutely necessary to rigorously confine the laboratorieswhich are qualified to perform such research. The same happens to sensitiveweapon techniques, God knows what our world will be if Al Qaeda can easilyobtain the dangerous gene weapon technologies in scientific publications.

In addition, not only can reasonablerestrictions prevent the unexpected consequences caused by scientific research,but it also can help better distributing our limited resources from a holisticview of the entire society, and thus further guide the development of research
rightalong the way that more beneficial to us. Generally, researchers are highlyspecialized in their own research areas, sometimes it is not easy for them torealize the limitation or potential risk of their research. The government, onthe other hand, acts as the manager of the whole society, will able to discoverproblems from a broader perspective, and thus can appropriately adjust theemphasis of national research according to the state and prospect of society.Further, the resource our society can devote to scientific research is notinfinite,
compare to increasing funding in certain areas, rational restrictionsin the opposite will be a more effective and economic way to control thedirection
of research. For example, in order to promote the research onrenewable energy, government can directly increase the funding for suchresearch, but it also can restrict the research on fossil fuel drove systems,followed by other economic and political policies. I think the latter will moreeffective since it can greatly exploit the power of market, making investmentand other resources flow to renewable energy research spontaneously, which willlargely increase efficiency and reduce redundancy of investments.

To sum up, although more liberal inresearch may bring more discoveries, unconditional liberty should not exist inany situation. A society without regulation will step into endless chaos,considering the mighty power of modern technologies, research withoutconstriction will only bring disaster. After all, what we are pursuing is notthe number of new discoveries, but the healthy and sustainable development ofour society.

sharonyeUID: 2862009

"Government should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development
As is known to us ,science is a two-edged weapon that can be used equally for good or evil . So I can’t agree with the idea that "Government should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development”without any other necessary factors and it is definitely assertive in certain conditions .
Some tragedies always come to my mind when I look back to the science history ,for example ,the accident of the Three Mile Island nueclear-power plant in 1979;the toxic gas leak that killed more than 2000 people in Bhopal,India,in 1984;and the disaster at the chernobyl nuclear-power plant
in the soviet Union in 1986.Should government place more safety retsrictons on these programs ,the posibility of the accident must be deminished.
Although the development of the secioty and the quality of our life are tremendously depend on scientific discoveries and technological advances,science and technology without any decipline or restriction may bring many problems .Simply take nuclear-weapon as an example , does any government dare to abuse them ?If so,a nuclear holocaust would happen ,which will no doubt lead to threateness,death etc. all over the world and even lead to the distinction of our human beings.
What’s more , life-prolong technologies and clone technology ,which is limited by UN , would also raise ethical issues .
As metioned above ,scientific technology always has some negtive effects ,but it can’t be denied that the quality of our life still rely on it .The inrtroduction of diesel locomotives greatly increased the efficiency of transportation ,as a consequence ,convenience our life as a whole ;the automation of industrial has greatly improve manufacturing process and bring us to the high-tech occupations of postindustrial society. Scientific research can do so much good to our life ,which can’t make great progress if be tightly restricted .
So I’d like to come to dialectics.
Scientific research and development that may contribute to human life shouldn’t be limited ,instead ,government need some laws,functions and fanicial support to encourage this kind of reasearch .That’s the opinion that "Government should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development”.On the contrast ,the research only refer to benefits ,ignoring environmental effects,human or other organism s’welfare must be strickly restricted .Only
in
this way can our life
stay healthy and become better and better.
To sum up ,whether to place restrictions on scientific research and development is hard to say ,but what is for sure is that government need to remain strategic which could help to judge the influnce of scientific research ,konwing what they should do .

hythythytUID: 2857045

I69 ：第一篇Issue，肯定超时了，请多多指教
What is scientific research intended for? To improve people's life standard and to make all the human being enjoy science-related convinients and benifits, I think, are one of the best answers. In my opinion, it is such criteria for making judgements: whether or not, government should place restricions on scientific research and development. We cannot make a sweeping statement about this question, since it depends on different situations.

In some cases, government should not tamper too much with progress of science, if not, it will bring about misguiding scientific progress into improper direction, or even encumber headway in science and therefore hamper advance of the whole society. Some historical events have proved this saying. Charles Robert Darwin was an very famous English naturalist who claimed that all scientific process, which he called natural selection, resulting in braching pattern of evolution. Unfortunately, in that era, all the society was controled by Christian church, including the rulling class. They treated this theory totally as a freak, labeling heterodox thought on it. As time went by, it turned out Darwin was right and it was then government and religious leader who impeded science, and society moving ahead. And so it was the case with Nicolaus Copemicus, who was a Renaissance astronomer and the first people to formulate a comprehensive heliocentric cosmology. This theory displaced the statement that Catholic church belived in: Earth was the center of the universe, and therefore was rejected by the government under the control of religion. And here is another example. In Christian Europe, with the collapse of Roman imperial authority, the study of dissection became localised because of religious government, which was obstructive to the development of anatomy.

From all the typical cases mentioned above, we can find out that government may be not wise enough for some particular reasons. A religion-controlled government evaluated new scientific theories or reserches from a religious view,whose benchmark is whether fit for the dogma, not the fact. If such government's will dominates science, it will definitely unfavourable for human advancement in both science and society.

However, not interfering too much doesn't mean never stepping into. Everything has two sides, containing science. Science can be benifical to human beings and also can ba fatal to us, so in this situation we need government to supervise in an appropriate way. Should we do everything that our science and technology can achieve? Here are some big events in history and you will find out the answer. From 1932 until 1972, the US public Health Service conducted a study in which 399 impoverished blask men diagnosed with syphills were monitored to record the natural history of that disease. This study was controversial for reasons concerning ethical standards, primarily bacause investigator s rejected to heal patients appropriately after the 1940s validation of penicillin therapy as an effective cure for the disease. This is the notorious scandal, Tuskegee Study. Although the stude of syphill's natural history was helpful to treat this disease, it really crossed the line of ethics at the expense of letting almost 400 people die unfeelinly. If government had basic interdance to the research, such villainous event shouldn't have happened. As for embryonic stem cell research, it also required government's interdance by reason of likelihood going against basic ethics.

Without supervision from government to scientific research, some scientists may focus merely on their own works, regardless of contravention of the moral, and even do something baleful to the public. Especially in our time,possessing advanced technology and refined apparatuses,like nuclear weapon, clone technic, chemical and biological weapons, etc if one of them is out of control, the whole human beings may be decimated, bringing about the most terrible catastrophe.

On one hand, with too much interference to scientific development, science may get into the bog and become stagnant, and on the other, without any supervision to scientific progress, it may  turn into a cold-blooded killer and result in fatal calamity. So what should we.do? I think is to find the balance between two sides and take advantage of science to establish our society more modernized.

自改：
What is scientific research intended for? To improve people's life standards by enjoying science-related conveniences, I think, is one of the best answers. In my opinion, it is such criteria, whether can bring about benefits, that be adopted for making judgements: whether or not, government should place restricions on scientific research and development. We cannot make a sweeping statement about this question, since it depends on different situations.

In some cases, government should not tamper too much with progress of science, if not, it may make for misleading scientific progress into an improper direction, or even encumber headway in science , therefore hampering advance of the whole society. Some historical events have proved this saying. Charles Robert Darwin was a famous English naturalist who claimed that all species of life have descended over time from common ancestors and proposed a scientific theory, which he called natural selection, resulting in branching pattern of evolution. Unfortunately, in that era, all the society was controled by Christian church, including the rulling class. They treated this theory totally as a freak, labeling heterodox thought on it. As time went by, it turned out Darwin was right and it was then government and religious leaders who impeded science and society moving ahead. Here is a similar story about Nicolaus Copemicus, who was a Renaissance astronomer and the first person to formulate a comprehensive heliocentric cosmology. His theory displaced the statement that Catholic church belived in: Earth was the center of the universe, and therefore was rejected by the government under the control of religion. In addition, with the collapse of Roman imperial authority in Christian Europe, , the study of dissection became localised because of religious government, which was obstructive to the development of anatomy.

From all the typical cases mentioned above, we can find out that government may be not wise enough for some particular reasons. A religion-controlled government evaluated new scientific theories or reserches from a religious view,whose benchmark is whether fit for the dogma, not the fact. If such governments' will dominate science, it will be definitely unfavourable for human advancement in both science and society.

However, not interfering too much doesn't mean never stepping into. Everything has two sides, containing science. Science can be benifical to human beings and also can ba fatal to us, so in this situation we need government to supervise in an appropriate way. Should we do everything that our science and technology can achieve? Here are some big events in history and you will find out the answer. From 1932 until 1972, the US public Health Service conducted a study in which 399 impoverished blask men diagnosed with syphilis were monitored to record the natural history of that disease. This study was controversial for reasons concerning ethical standards, primarily bacause investigators refused to heal patients appropriately after the 1940s validation of penicillin therapy as an effective cure for the disease. This is the notorious scandal, Tuskegee Study. Although the stude of syphilis' natural history was very important scientific materials for treating this disease, it really crossed the line of ethics at the expense of letting almost 400 people die unfeelinly. If government had basic interdance to the research, such villainous event shouldn't have happened. As for embryonic stem cell research, it also required government's interdance by reason of the likelihood going against basic ethics.

Without supervision from government to scientific research, some scientists may focus merely on their own works, regardless of contravention of the moral, and may even do something baleful to the public. Especially in our time, possessing advanced technology and refined apparatuses,like nuclear weapon, clone technic, chemical and biological weapons, etc, if one of them is out of control, the whole human beings may be decimated, bringing about the most terrible catastrophe.

On one hand, with too much interference to scientific development, science may get into the bog and become stagnant, and on the other, without any supervision to scientific progress, it may turn into a cold-blooded killer and result in fatal calamity. So what should we.do? I think is to find the balance between two sides and take advantage of science to establish our society more modernized.

hythythytUID: 2857045

改hwlqc的：
黄色：可以改进的地方；红色：错误的地方；蓝色：我添上的词语
As we known, the basic development(advancement,避免与后面重复) of the society is always based on the development of science. So (这里的so就意味着该句与前句是因果关系，但是我觉的因果关系不明显)I partly degree with the notion that government should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development. The problem between science and government is much more complicated. Whether to restrict, how to restrict, when to restrict and the degree of restrict should all based(原型base) on the substance of the research and the situation of the society.

The purpose of science is to explore the unknown, which will lead to the development of the human beings. So government, which is often think about things from narrow aspects, especially when it is influence by the religious or other factors, should never ever try to control
the scientific research for their own profits. The history always telling(tell) vivid stories about the past and leading(lead) people to think about what is actually right. So let us look at what happen in the Middle Ages. At that time government is very influenced(was controled/governed/dominated,尽量别重复，注意时态) by the religion and it banned one of the most effect(efficient) ways to learn about our bodies, the dissection(anatomy,避免与后面dissect重复) of human beings. Until the Revival of Literature, Vesalius take(took) the(a) risk to dissect a body. It is(was) a venture, but it rewarded. It first time proved the right of the assumption of blood circulation. (The assumption of blood circulation was been proved for the first time.连续三个it做主语，读上去句式有些单调)Without the restriction of the government, the medicine research would be done much earlier.

However, this unrestraint is not absolutely(absolute) at any situation. The scientific research is sometimes too far from the era it belongs to. Take cloning human beings, which is also famous in medicine, as an example. The moral and ethical problem is not solved yet. So the government is doing the right things to place restriction on the research of clone human beings. As none of us would like to see another "me" in front of us after we week(weak) up in one morning. It is obviously that without the restriction the society would be in chaos. Think about a world which contains hundreds of you and no one can actually distinguish which of you could be defined as "you"(感觉这里有些混乱，表达得不是很清楚), they are all the same even in DNA. Not mentioned some scientific research has nothing about research at all. The 2010 Oscar's best documentary prize winner, The Cove, reveals the fact of the slaughter of dolphins in TaiDi, Japan. And such human less slaughter is covered by the shell of scientific research. In these situation, government should act as soon as possible.

And the difference between the different researches‘ substance and other factors should be considered. Using the research of clone human beings again. I do accept the opinion that government should place restriction on this research now. However, it should also be different as time goes by. Under the moral system we built today, it is great idea to ban clone human beings. Then what will happen if we think about this research under the moral system hundreds years later. Maybe we will just get the same result as we focus on the dissection under the moral system today. And to the research like the slaughter happened in Japan, it should be stopped as soon as possible in any situation.

To sum up. Without restriction, researches may cause great disaster, without permissibility, science can hardly step forward. This issue is complicated which hanging on (resting on,如果不想重复，试试这个短语)the substance of the research and the situation of the society.

Comment:文章逻辑性挺好，但是我觉得倒数第二段有些叙述不清，有些问题不好讨论，干脆就别写，不如在举例上多花些功夫；词语上有些重复；语法上有些小错误；文章整体感觉还是不错的。

ltymoonUID: 2685371

哈哈，今天积极点儿~~


TOPIC: ISSUE69 - "Government should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development"
WORDS: 548          TIME: 00:36:17          DATE: 2010/7/27 0:19:25

      I agree with the speaker's claim that the government should overrule the scientific research and development. However, there is no necissity for the author to make the statement resolute by declaiming that the goverment should place few, if any restrictions.
     First of all, I strongly agree that the scientific research is not allowed to be overtaken. It is well-known that the scientific research calls for inspiration and self-engaged. If the scientists and researchers are requested that they should be confined in a special area,  it will be an unfortunate waste, which is againts the research's work, of their outstanding talents. Besides,as that  the research usually is at the cut edge of the human-being's knowledge and it will take a long time before it contributes to society while the government place more attenton on the comtemporary social problems, it is probably that the government will reduce their support of some researches of which the outcome makes no sense and even ridiculous at the moment.Unfortunately, some great inventors are just the kind of research. Maxwell's equation at his times was too revolunary to be applied to daily life. However, after his  pass-by, the equation finally turned out to be outstanding and contriubed a lot to the understanding of how the electricity is come into being.
     Then sometimes the government will make use of the research and scientists to satisfy their own benefits. Hilton at the Second World War aggregated brilliant scientists to work for him and invent the weapons for his army. He even urged them to make use of the nuclear power. Fortunately, the demagogue failed at last, otherwise it is hard to imagine what the world will be.
     Moreover, that the researchers feel litte freedom to create is sometimes because they don't have enough fiance to run a research and should need some proposal. However, in today's world, more and more companies realize the importance of innovation and are ready to provide the researchers with affluent amount of finance. Giants such as GE even raises their own phD and masters to do the research work. As a result, the infulence of the restrictions from the goverment is not so humorous. To take a step further, some scientific research is carried on by the amateurs of different backgrounds, the government lacks faculty and staff to keep an eye on that huge number of people.
      However, it doesn't mean that the government places no restrictions at all. When it comes to the research area which has the possibility to challenge the temporary moral standards, the government has the responsibility to play a role in it. The most widely-know example is the research in genome and coloning, which brings lots of questions with itself: the way the society treats the people who is colonned and the rights of that kind of group while it brings great hope to desperated couples. Considering various factors on this question, the government should be careful about making any decisions. Besides, as the public sources are limited, it is considerate to keep a balance between the scientific researches and projects that will satisfy the current needs.
       In a word, the statement the speaker talks about relates in so many fields that it is unjustified to conclude resolutely that the government should not restrict the research areas.

PsMaggieUID: 2861847

TOPIC: ISSUE69 - "Government should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development"
WORDS: 574          TIME: 00:46:51          DATE: 2010/7/22 14:48:37

The speaker alleges that government had better place few restrictions on scientific research and development. By scrutinizing many aspects of this allegation, I concede that the speaker is on the correct philosophical side of this issue. However, in some circumstances, government should determine the extent of restrictions based on the scientific research's content and grab the development's direction according to the needs of the society. It means that government should arbitrarily limit the scientific development.

Admittedly, this assertion is otherwise instructive. In retrospect to history, scientific researches and development indeed improved our quality of life and made our work and study convenient and smooth. In medicinal realm, medical research actually brings plenty of benefits to human's everyday living. Such as organ transplantation, antineoplastic drug which do save a lot of people's lives. In psychology realm, the study of mentality encourage the leader contribute themselves to mankind greatly. In technical realm, as technology researches go on, more and more achievement to facilitate the high-tech life like communication research are bringing out. In transportation realm, of course, people's spending less and less minutes in going and from work because of the invention of such many kinds of vehicle thus improve the efficiency of life completely. Without government funding, scientists would find it difficult to carry out large-scale projects. Government can also organize scientists to solve the most urgent problems that concern society. For instance, when SARS broke out in 2003, it is government's support that finally lead scientists developed the antibodies to control the epidemic.

However, there are many scientific developments even harm the democratic essence: freedom, peace and respect. While we use modern means of transports galloping between the cities, the gas in the Earth is decreasing quickly; while we are enjoying the comfort in air conditioning room in such a hot day, global warming is growing; Scientists invented the cloning technology, however it is this kind of technology that triggered another thought-provoking ethical issues of human which cause the first relevant legal document in 1998: violation of the ethics of human cloning should be strictly prohibited. Otherwise, there are some scientific researches and development which not set for the step of human society should be restricted by government. In some circumstance, scientific research is not for the purpose of improving society's welfare. And such researches even harm the peace and freedom which we always pursue. Thus in my view the governments should pick out these researches and place restrictions.

In addition, scientific research is a double-edged sword at the same time, especially in some application stage which may probably be use in some terrible aspects that government need to stop them. For example, application of nuclear reactors to generate electricity is plummy while it would turn bad if this kind of technology is made for manufacture of nuclear weapons which possible bring disaster to the whole world. We have to figure out another plan of solution to what would harm our health or destruct the biological species diversity scientific experiments. Thus government ought to keep a balance----not only to give sufficient freedom and space research, but also give guidance and direction to its limits.

To sum up, whether some specific scientific research and development should be limited or not, government needs to consider on the ground of the needs of the whole society. Only when the experiments are under the control of government won't they become what does not conducive to the community and the just for someone's profit.

PsMaggieUID: 2861847

改晓航

In this era of flying development of science and technology, whether we should reexamine the restrictions on the scientific research and development is an urgent problem for the development of our civilization. （不知道有没有理解错你的意思，你说whether we should reexamine the restrictions on the scientific research and development is an urgent problem 也就是说我们是否应该重新审视科学研究上的限制是一个紧迫的问题？我们是否应该重新审视是个紧迫的问题？你觉得这句话有问题么）The problem is more or fewer limits. It may be better if we take an appropriate restriction on scientific research and development.

Firstly, scientific research and development have brought us so many benefits even they play significant roles in the development of society, such as communication, transportation and automation. Thousands of years ago, people communicate（时态） by letters laced on the pigeons or by messengers just like the one running to the Marathon. But now only a mobile phone is enough. You can communicate with others rapidly whenever and wherever you are. What's more, to instead of mobile phone Internet and facsimile sometimes can be other choices. In addition, with the modern transport--cars, trains and aircrafts--you can go everywhere on the（去掉） earth in a short time. Therefore, science brings us so many convenient that we may （加个be）addicted to it.

Granted scientific research and development bring us so many advantages, but without any restrictions on it may cause some catastrophic phenomena我感觉这边应该还需要有一个it，否则就缺少主语了，因为without后面并不是个完整的句子，其实倒过来就是it may cause some catastrophic phenomena without any restrictions on it. High level of technology sometimes is uncontrolled by people. In many science fictions, our human’s dominance would replaced by the robot with AI we created in the near future. Someone may say that science fictions are based on dreams which may not be true. But can we say these fictions have no relation with the public skepticism about the flying speed development of science? If someday AI is accomplished successfully, the speed of the robot's self-improvement may exceed our imagination. With the body of metal, the strong computing, ability of self-learning and never getting tired the robots can easily learn what we have learned, like nuclear, which can ruin our human and the earth. If so it means our scientific development killed ourselves. It seems paradoxical. For this, government should take the duties to prevent the science from developing to a killing machine esp. to us.这段的错误不是一句两句能说得清楚的了，我决定Q上跟你详谈

In other fields, we can also find such trends like robots which mentioned above. Take the example of researches on cloning, the Big Bang and nuclear weapon. It’s possible that these science products destroy our human civilization. Restrictions on these researches are urgent otherwise these researches may touch the danger line. Nuclear have become the greatest danger to our existence; cloning have been on the way to destroy human's ethics and if we have known the principle of the Big Bang, it may be a next nuclear weapon. The energy which the Big Bang emitted is billion times larger than the nuclear fusion's. 这段和上一段并起来，这还是在讲without any restrictions on it may cause some catastrophic phenomena，只是分别运用在不同的领域，但是既然是同一个论点，就应该放在同一大段，in other field这句就说明了这是在讲同一个论点运用于…领域当中，本身就不好放在一个大段的开头，因为这样，这一大段就没有一个中心句了。

Furthermore, to restrain scientific research and development too tight may cause many disadvantages to our society. In the Qing Dynasty, which at that time is called the Great Kingdom, a quantity of restrictions on the scientific research and development and the empires were taken because the rulers thought the science is just a useless hobby. 你这里又开始说不能不能限制得太紧了？？？那你这个应该在第二段你让步支持观点的时候说的啊，用furthermore就更不对了完全逻辑混乱了In the empires' depository, numbers of inventions, which can change the destiny of China, are stored with dust. Without the scientific research and development, China rapidly fell down to a colony trampled by western colonists from the wealthiest empire of the world. So for a country the science is the foundation for developing to a strong power. Take another example of U.S., it’s needless to say their desire on science discovery and always fight for scientific freedom. For their little restriction on scientific research and development, so many discoveries and inventions belong to Americans that they dominant in many fields and the U.S. became the most powerful country. Restrictions on scientific research and development let country decay, let truth shown to public later and let great scientists cannot receive the admiration deserved. Few restrictions should be placed on scientific research a development.

The advantages and disadvantages of technology are almost equal. With all or without restrictions neither is a good choice, but appropriate restrictions on it is one这是中式英语. Our government should take suitable restrictions on science according （加to，固定用法）its fields or its danger.
来来来，我决定私下好好跟你讨论讨论你这篇文章，这个逻辑哟…




改itymoon


首先，建议你写完后先贴到word里面，完全可以自己先改掉一些错误了，我贴过来的时候红了一片。。。
I agree with the speaker's claim that the government should overrule the scientific research and development. However, there is no necissity for the author to make the statement resolute by declaiming that the goverment should place few, if any restrictions.
necissity是个错别词吧我查不到这个词，word里面也是划红的，不知道你是不是要写necessary，感觉你这句要说的是作者没必要state这个政府应该place few, if any restrictions，对吗？如果对的话，那么我个人的观点，这个是绝对不应该这么说的，因为你这等于是在说这个题目是没必要存在的，issue 的题目本来就是一个很有得研究、争论的题目，结果你直接说这个题目是没必要存在的，题目本来就一句话Government should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development，然后你直接就说there is no…. for the author to make the statement resolute by declaiming that the goverment should place few, if any restrictions………当然如果是我误会你那个necissity的意思，就另当别论了。
     First of all, I strongly agree that the scientific research is not allowed to be overtaken我不是很明白你想表达的，因为我查到的be overtaken是被赶上被超过的意思，所以我不是很明白科学研究不被允许被追上超过是什么意思，overtake是否还有其他意思呢？. It is well-known that the scientific research calls for inspiration and self-engaged. If the scientists and researchers are requested that they should be confined in a special area,  it will be an unfortunate waste, which is againts the research's work, of their outstanding talents.题目完全没有说要强制科学家们在某一个特定的领域做研究，拿这个be confined in a special area来说事我感觉是偏题了。 Besides, as that  the research usually is at the cut edge of the human-being's knowledge and it will take a long time before it contributes to society while the government place more attenton on the comtemporary social problems, it is probably that the government will reduce their support of some researches of which the outcome makes no sense and even ridiculous at the moment.Unfortunately, some great inventors are just the kind of research. Maxwell's equation at his times was too revolunary to be applied to daily life. However, after his  pass-by, the equation finally turned out to be outstanding and contriubed a lot to the understanding of how the electricity is come into being.混乱了。。。我已经不明白你这段到底是在支持作者的观点还是反对作者的观点了，你的第一句中心句写的是I strongly agree that the scientific research is not allowed to be overtaken，好像是你同意科学研究不应该被允许be overtaken,当然我还是不确定你这个be overtaken是要表达什么，但是后面看下来好像全是在证明作者观点的正确的地方。
     Then sometimes the government will make use of the research and scientists to satisfy their own benefits. Hilton at the Second World War aggregated brilliant scientists to work for him and invent the weapons for his army. He even urged them to make use of the nuclear power. Fortunately, the demagogue failed at last, otherwise it is hard to imagine what the world will be.这段的开头你用了then，如果用这个词就说明这段是承接上一段继续表达你与上一段相同的态度的，但是这段看下来你貌似是在说政府有时会利用一些研究得来的结果去满足他们自己的利益，老样子，上一段除了第一句其余都是在发表同意减少限制的观点的，但是这段你在说的貌似是弊端。。。逻辑又混乱了。。
     Moreover, that the researchers feel litte freedom to create is sometimes because they don't have enough fiance to run a research and should need some proposal.（病句，改成Moreover, it would sometimes make researchers feel little freedom to create for they don’t have enough financing thus in this case they might need to look for other proposal） (另外，这个有一个先后顺序的混乱，政府就是为了限制科学研究才限制了对科学家们研究资金的提供，后者就是政府为了达到前者而使出的手段，因此不是被用来当做论据的)However, in today's world, more and more companies realize the importance of innovation and are ready to provide the researchers with affluent amount of finance. （病句，改成However, more and more companies are realizing the importance of innovation and ready to provide the researchers with affluent amount of finance in nowadays）Giants such as GE even raises their own phD and masters to do the research work. As a result, the infulence of the restrictions from the goverment is not so humorous.呃，我还是不明白，没有那么幽默？humorous是还有其他的意思是吗？ To take a step further, some scientific research is carried on by the amateurs of different backgrounds, the government lacks faculty and staff to keep an eye on that huge number of people.我大致明白你的意思是一些企业也开始会去自助科学研究，也就是并不是全都要仰仗政府的支持的，但是你说这个是为了支持题目观点还是反对题目观点？
      However, it doesn't mean that the government places no restrictions at all. When it comes to the research area which has the possibility to challenge the temporary moral standards, the government has the responsibility to play a role in it. The most widely-know example is the research in genome and coloning, which brings lots of questions with itself: the way the society treats the people who is colonned and the rights of that kind of group while it brings great hope to desperated couples. Considering various factors on this question, the government should be careful about making any decisions. Besides, as the public sources are limited, it is considerate to keep a balance between the scientific researches and projects that will satisfy the current needs.
       In a word, the statement the speaker talks about relates in so many fields that it is unjustified to conclude resolutely that the government should not restrict the research areas.

有任何意见或问题Q我

wellteaUID: 2265842

TOPIC: ISSUE69 - "Government shouldplace few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development"
WORDS: 647
TIME: 02:09:07
DATE: 2010-07-28 1:06:32

In modern society, no one will doubt thatscientific research is the main thruster which drives our society forward.Freedom and tolerance are necessary for the fast development of all research.Thus, the proposal of this topic that our government should impose restrictionsas few as possible on scientific research and development seems reasonable atfirst glance. Nonetheless, a mature and rational government should neverneglect the significance and inevitable of supervising and guiding of researchactivities.

Indeed, liberal research environment willpromote the scientific development, while over restricting will stifle anyfurther progress. There are mainly two means for doing research, one is tosummary and rediscovery existing knowledge, another is to explore untappedareas. Unreasonable restrictions will impede both paths and thus slow down thescientific progress. For example, to the existing knowledge, if our governmentcompletely eradicate the smallpox virus for the safety concern, there will beno chance for scientists, who are struggling for the cure of AIDS, to gethelpful knowledge from this deadly virus which is very similar to HIV virususing cutting edge technologies; and to the new areas, if the governmentscenturies ago insisted that human anatomy is illegal, we will never be able toappreciate the huge advancement of medical science. From this point of view,unreasonable restrictions should be abolished and long existed restrictionsshould also be re-evaluated and updated as the development of society.

On the other hand, however, modest andreasonable regulations are also indispensable, for the spread of sensitive anddangerous technologies will seriously damage the safety of human all over theworld. In the same case of smallpox virus, and of course other lethal virus,the attributes of these tiny creatures make the research involving themextremely dangerous as a small leak of them will cause disasters killinginnumerable people. Thus it is absolutely necessary to rigorously confine the laboratorieswhich are qualified to perform such research. The same happens to sensitiveweapon techniques, God knows what our world will be if Al Qaeda can easilyobtain the dangerous gene weapon technologies in scientific publications.

In addition, not only can reasonablerestrictions prevent the unexpected consequences caused by scientific research,but it also can help better distributing our limited resources from a holisticview of the entire society, and thus further guide the development of research rightalong the way that more beneficial to us. Generally, researchers are highlyspecialized in their own research areas, sometimes it is not easy for them torealize the limitation or potential risk of their research. The government, onthe other hand, acts as the manager of the whole society, will able to discoverproblems from a broader perspective, and thus can appropriately adjust theemphasis of national research according to the state and prospect of society.Further, the resource our society can devote to scientific research is notinfinite, compare to increasing funding in certain areas, rational restrictionsin the opposite will be a more effective and economic way to control thedirection of research. For example, in order to promote the research onrenewable energy, government can directly increase the funding for suchresearch, but it also can restrict the research on fossil fuel drove systems,followed by other economic and political policies. I think the latter will moreeffective since it can greatly exploit the power of market, making investmentand other resources flow to renewable energy research spontaneously, which willlargely increase efficiency and reduce redundancy of investments.

To sum up, although more liberal inresearch may bring more discoveries, unconditional liberty should not exist inany situation. A society without regulation will step into endless chaos,considering the mighty power of modern technologies, research withoutconstriction will only bring disaster. After all, what we are pursuing is notthe number of new discoveries, but the healthy and sustainable development ofour society.

wellteaUID: 2265842

郁闷，因为上次在word里改好后粘过来颜色什么的都没有了，这次就直接在编辑里面改，结果改了很多突然不知道按着什么键了就全没了，我还是粘附件吧。

ROse_MaryUID: 2790464

占！！！！！！

ROse_MaryUID: 2790464

我来啦！！！！！！