issue 40

crazyjooUID: 2805124

  
TOPIC: ISSUE40 - "Scholars and researchers should not be concerned with whether their work makes a contribution to the larger
society. It is more important that they pursue their individual interests, however unusual or idiosyncratic those interests
may seem."

position: although interest is the paramount impetus of scientific research, under some circumstances, it is necessary for
scientists to place more emphasis on the application of his/her research.
1.1 some real achievement can only derive from the interest of scientists
1.2 whether the research of research can make a contruibution to the whole society remains unknown.  Einstein's mass-energy
fomula--atomic bomb, nuclear energy/ Newton's Three Laws of Motion--astronomy

2.1However, to let scientific research go unchecked may not be necessary beneficial. It is not uncommon to see that some
scientists damage the well-being of individuals of the society (project of cloning human(area)/  vivisection experiments
(method) )
2.2Moreover, given the limited resource, it is necessary, or even desirable for scientists to shift their cynosure from
their interest to projects which make contribution to the society more directly and significantly.(SARS  vaccine) (energy
crisis)



Which is more important to scientists, to make more contribution to the society or to pursue their individual interests? Some people, along with the speaker may choose the latter one for the very reason that the impact of interest is so tremendous that the pace of scientific research will be accelerated at no doubt. In my view, a scientist should also pay attention to the influence of his/her research; after all, the primary principle of sciences is to serve the society well.


Initially, some real contributions can only derive from the interest of scientists. Many people cannot understand why those mathematicians enjoy their work. Playing with the intricate mathematical models and those abstract lines and points seems to be so boring to most people. It is interest of truth that incite endless enthusiasm of these mathematicians to overcome one puzzle after another. Gold Bach conjecture, the greatest puzzle in the academy of mathematics is an apt example. No one mathematician has a correct answer to this puzzle yet. However, more and more mathematicians take part in the exploration of solving this question regardless whether they will find the answer of this question, not to mention this exploration with hardship will bring contribution to the society. In fact, during such exploration, scientists have made lots of contribution to the society due to their innovative measures designed to solve Gold Bach conjecture. In this respect,


Moreover, the scientists are standing on the frontier of human knowledge, whether the results of scientific researches will have great value in application usually remain known. Can any one predict that Newton's Three Laws of Motion can be applied to modern astronomy? Can any one foresee that Einstein's energy-mass formula facilitate the development of nuclear energy?
Even great scientists as Newton and Einstein themselves cannot predict whether their scientific research can make contribution to society, how can we make that scientists change their directions of scientific exploration?


However, under some circumstances, to let scientists and their scientific research go unchecked can damage well-being of individuals of society as well as the society as a whole. Some scientists carry their scientific research by all means while ignoring the undesirable consequences. One striking example is the vivisection experiments. In order to test their new medicine, medical scientists raise money to employ volunteers for vivisection experiments. Most volunteers do not realize the unfairness of this trade since they do not recognize the potential danger of those new medicine. Even if the new medicine has side effect to the volunteers and do damage to their health,
scientists just need to pay more dollars for the victim’s blood. Such immoral measure apparently violates the moral standard of the society as well as the intent nature of sciences--to serve human beings well.


On the other hand, given the limited resource or imperative situations, sometimes it is necessary, or even desirable for scientists to place more emphasis on scientific projects which will make contribution to the society more directly and significantly. When SARS was rampant in China, it is scientists' responsibility to use their talent and intelligence to solve this problem rather than to keep immersing in their interest. Physician scientists, chemical scientists and even mathematicians all take part in this campaign against the horrible disease. To some extent, it is science' obligation to protect the society.


To sum up, although interest serves to be the paramount impetus of scientific research, scientists should try to strike a balance between their interest and the application of the research. Actually, they do not contradict to each other. The sense of achievement and responsibility may in turn arouse their ardor and hence benefit the development of science as well.

starfirezhuUID: 2842465

TOPIC: ISSUE40 - "Scholars and researchers should not be concerned with whether their work makes a contribution to the larger society. It is more important that they pursue their individual interests, however unusual or idiosyncratic those interests may seem." [Implication]: Induvidual interests are mor important than contribution to society! position: although interests is are the paramount impetus of scientific research, under some circumstances, it is necessary for scientists to place more emphasis on the application of his/her their researchies. [Position]: Although individual interests play a very important role in sicientific research work, it is unreasonable to ignore how these scientific research achievments contribute to the society directly or indirectly. 1.1 some real achievement can only derive from the interest of scientists It should be admitted that individual interests are the most powerful incentives for scholars and researchers to achieve exellent results. e.g. Einstein, Newton,... 1.2 whether the research of research can make a contruibution to the whole society remains unknown.  Einstein's mass-energy fomula--atomic bomb, nuclear energy/ Newton's Three Laws of Motion--astronomy Great scientific achivements should be promoted and applied in a proper way so that they can contribute to scociety and benefit poeple. On the one hand, a new breakthrough might remain unknown and useless unless it is introduced to the public. On the other hand, a great discovery might become evil if it is not properly applied and controlled. e.g. human DNA clone; nuclear physics;... 2.1However, to let scientific research go unchecked may not be necessaryily beneficial. It is not uncommon to see that some scientists damage the well-being of individuals of the society (project of cloning human(area)/  vivisection experiments (method) ) Direct conributions: building; manufacturing; medical techniques; invention; education; design; Indirect contributions: arts; theories, especially pure theories; literature; 2.2Moreover, given the limited resource, it is necessary, or even desirable for scientists to shift their cynosure from their interest to projects which make contribution to the society more directly and significantly.(SARS  vaccine) (energy crisis) [Conclusion]: Individual interests --> power and energy to accomplish work. Contribution to society --> to evaluate work. Which is more important to scientists, to make more contribution to the society or to pursue their individual interests? Some people, along with the speaker may choose the latter one for the very reason that the impact of interest is so tremendous that the pace of scientific research will be accelerated at no doubt. In my view, a scientist should also pay attention to the influence of his/her research; after all, the primary principle of sciences is to serve the society well. Initially, some real contributions can only derive from the interest of scientists. Many people cannot understand why those mathematicians enjoy their work. Playing with the intricate mathematical models and those abstract lines and points seems to be so boring to most people. It is interest of truth that incite endless enthusiasm of these mathematicians to overcome one puzzle after another. Gold Bach conjecture, the greatest puzzle in the academy of mathematics is an apt example. No one mathematician has a correct answer to this puzzle yet. However, more and more mathematicians take part in the exploration of solving this question regardless whether they will find the answer of this question, not to mention this exploration with hardship will bring contribution to the society. In fact, during such exploration, scientists have made lots of contribution to the society due to their innovative measures designed to solve Gold Bach conjecture. In this respect, Moreover, the scientists are standing on the frontier of human knowledge, whether the results of scientific researches will have great value in application usually remain known. Can any one predict that Newton's Three Laws of Motion can be applied to modern astronomy? Can any one foresee that Einstein's energy-mass formula facilitate the development of nuclear energy? Even great scientists as Newton and Einstein themselves cannot predict whether their scientific research can make contribution to society, how can we make that scientists change their directions of scientific exploration? However, under some circumstances, to let scientists and their scientific research go unchecked can damage well-being of individuals of society as well as the society as a whole. Some scientists carry their scientific research by all means while ignoring the undesirable consequences. One striking example is the vivisection experiments. In order to test their new medicine, medical scientists raise money to employ volunteers for vivisection experiments. Most volunteers do not realize the unfairness of this trade since they do not recognize the potential danger of those new medicine. Even if the new medicine has side effect to the volunteers and do damage to their health, scientists just need to pay more dollars for the victim’s blood. Such immoral measure apparently violates the moral standard of the society as well as the intent nature of sciences--to serve human beings well. On the other hand, given the limited resource or imperative situations, sometimes it is necessary, or even desirable for scientists to place more emphasis on scientific projects which will make contribution to the society more directly and significantly. When SARS was rampant in China, it is scientists' responsibility to use their talent and intelligence to solve this problem rather than to keep immersing in their interest. Physician scientists, chemical scientists and even mathematicians all take part in this campaign against the horrible disease. To some extent, it is science' obligation to protect the society. To sum up, although interest serves to be the paramount impetus of scientific research, scientists should try to strike a balance between their interest and the application of the research. Actually, they do not contradict to each other. The sense of achievement and responsibility may in turn arouse their ardor and hence benefit the development of science as well.