高频issue69求拍

pkulmUID: 2869953

高频issue69恳求拍……速度还是不行呀……

TOPIC: ISSUE69 - "Government should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development"
WORDS: 224
TIME: 00:45:00
DATE: 2010-8-7 10:51:26

Should government place any restrictions on scientific research and development? I concede that the approaches of scientific research should not be given undue freedom, even if the goal of which is reasonable; (otherwise we may put our value system at risk.) However, at the same time, government should think twice before put restraint to scientific research as well as its development when it comes to the original purposes of scientific inquiry as well as its potential consequences; a contrary view would deny the benefits from the fruits of technology advances owning to scientific research and perhaps defeat its own purpose.

First and foremost, there is no denying that many the restrictions are placed on scientific research out of the concern that the consequences of the particular research, whether medical or ethical, are uncertain. But history informs us that the fruits of scientific inquiry have always brought us challenges, rather than disasters, together with benefits. For instance, the research on nuclear energy has once been controversial because its unimaginable potentials might be a real threat to the entire humanity. However, it is ourselves who can choose to use this potential to solve the energy crisis confronting our modern society, or to destroy our civilization with nuclear weapons. In my view, the same goes for some people’s caution that developing the power to alter our own genomes is a step we should not take. Admittedly, if genetic information and technology are misused, the consequences could be horrific. However,
it is the misuse of, I have to say, rather than the development of science itself is ultimately responsible for the potential devastating consequences. If the new technologies could help us lead healthier, happier lives, we need to think very carefully about whether the reasons for objecting outright to their research are valid. After all, It may be not a smart decision to decline the benefits just because of the possibilities of ill consequences.

Secondly, the restriction itself cannot solve the problem in discussion, and it would be more efficient if we spend our efforts in developing guidelines to the application of scientific research. Taking the genetic screening for example, it can obtain information that benefit individuals: in this case if you learn at an early age that you have a genetic predisposition to heart disease, you can change your lifestyle if necessary to include more exercise and low-fat diet, thereby improving your chances of staying healthy. Timely information from genetic screening may also affect childbearing decisions and thereby reduce the incidence of a disease in the population, thus benefits the society. But a screening test can also violate the right to privacy and be made into a source of dissent and alienation, such as the genetic discrimination in health insurance and in the workplace. In this case, I believe that developing the guidelines established to ensure that genetic screening reaches the right people at the right time and that information gained from it is used for the right purposes, is more useful and efficient than just putting restrictions to its research and development.

Thirdly, as the head of department of biology once said:”In my observation, most scientists mainly rely on two motive force to go forward with great efforts and persistence: to pursue their own intellectual interests as well as to satisfy the noble curiosity about the world, or to make a contribution to benefit the rest of the world. After all, restraining scientific research by government's authority may just frustrate the scholars and posing a negative effect on the
intellectually alive
atmosphere of research. For example, a scientist who is focusing on the use of embryonic stem cells and with great excitement about its potential for human therapeutic cloning to replace lost or damaged tissues would be disappointed if the government cut down the fund to the relevant research due to the dispute about its consequences. There is no doubt that in this case government's interference would play a negative role in the intellectually alive atmosphere in the academic world, which just defeats the purpose of its own.

Despite the merits of the assertion, however, undue approaches in scientific inquiry should be restrained by the government, the same way as in any professional field. For example, the pharmaceutical company --Pfizer was once accused of the inappropriate test of new drugs on some patients, which may be responsible for some damages of health several years later. There is no doubt that some scientific research is sometimes driven by profits. Despite its specificity, scientific research is no exception when it conflicts legislation and thus should be restraint by the government.

In sum, because the potential consequences, the agents and approaches of scientific research, which sometimes intertwine to form an organic whole and thus become more complex than any single one of them, I commit to the optimal approach to seek a balance and take an all-sided consideration when the government place restrictions on scientific research and development.