最后的战役 第一周 issue 40 by Elaine

hfyyelaineUID: 2976419

I40 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

用时：因为第一篇写，所以没有专门控制时间，这篇从构思到写大概有一个半小时

There is a lasting debate over whether the possible contribution to human kind is secondary to scholars' and researchers' interests upon deciding the direction of their research. The speaker seems to confirm this opinion. From my point of view, it is right in most occasions, while in some extreme cases, the choices of some scholars should be controlled.

First, being motivated by their own interests provides researchers with lasting passion and faith, without which they can hardly insist with their projects. Science is never a plain sailing. Even the seemingly genius scientist Edison has said that success is equal to 1 percent of talent adding 99 percent of hard work. It is common sense that whatever a project is aimed to, it faces innumerable difficulties and can be only fulfilled by "99 percent of hard work". Dedication and devotion, originating in love and passion for this course, act as the fuel to work hard and sustains a scientist go on with the research. Therefore, the absence of interests may leaves projects unfinished, causing unnecessary waste of financial and personnel resources having been invested into those projects, slowing the development of science itself.

Second, no completely right and comprehensive evaluation could be made about the contribution of a certain study, for the possible changes of situation. Even if some research seems generate no any benefit at its time, it might turn out to be important cornerstone for other breakthroughs. Considering those astronomers when the discipline is just born, they had achieved almost nothing but making records of the appearance of certain stars, or of the changes of the moon. But no one would deny these initiate jobs, which provided rich materials for the further developments of astronomy. Now that the true value of some research hide until the accumulation is enough to lead to something prominent, the contribution to the larger society alone cannot be regarded as a standard when deciding the topics of research.

However, does it means that a scientist or a scholar can do whatever draws his or her attention without limits? The answer is definitely negative. On one hand, rules should be drew up and limits are called. Nowadays the research of nuclear weapon is still prohibited, for it might bring about disasters to the human kind along with the technological developments. Science is neutral but when it involves practical application, values should be taken into account. Academic goals are not always coincident with the general benefit of a society. Free as researchers, they have to obey some basic principles. On the other, since the resources are limited, it is indubitable that when several projects are competing for supports, the chances for those help more are bigger. In both two respects, contribution still cannot be abandoned—it has the say when scholars’ and researchers’ interests contradict with the benefit of majority, or when a choice is needed.

In conclusion, contribution is not an effective guide of scientific research. It is proper to allow scholars and researchers to follow their hearts when their consideration is within the basic range of morality. As for those who may jeopardize the benefit of society, there should be some government departments of organizations to draw a bottom line. In addition, it is best, though not very easy, to combine the interests and positive outcome, guaranteeing both the passion of researchers and the welfare of society.

adam05UID: 2670502

There is a lasting debate over whether the possible contribution to human kind is secondary to scholars' and researchers' interests upon deciding the direction of their research. The speaker seems to confirm this opinion. From my point of view, it is right in most occasions, while in some extreme cases, the choices of some scholars should be controlled.

First, being motivated by their own interests provides researchers with lasting passion and faith, without which they can hardly insist with their projects. Science is never a plain sailing. Even the seemingly genius scientist Edison has said that success is equal to 1 percent of talent adding 99 percent of hard work. It is common sense that whatever a project is aimed to, it faces innumerable difficulties and can be only fulfilled by "99 percent of hard work". Dedication and devotion, originating in love and passion for this course, act as the fuel to work hard and sustains a scientist go on with the research. Therefore, the absence of interests may leaves projects unfinished, causing unnecessary waste of financial and personnel resources having been invested into those projects, slowing the development of science itself.

Second, no completely right and comprehensive evaluation could be made about the contribution of a certain study, for the possible changes of situation. Even if some research seems generate no any benefit at its time, it might turn out to be important cornerstone for other breakthroughs. Considering those astronomers when the discipline is just born, they had achieved almost nothing but making records of the appearance of certain stars, or of the changes of the moon. But no one would deny these initiate jobs, which provided rich materials for the further developments of astronomy. Now that the true value of some research hide until the accumulation is enough to lead to something prominent, the contribution to the larger society alone cannot be regarded as a standard when deciding the topics of research.

However, does it means that a scientist or a scholar can do whatever draws his or her attention without limits? The answer is definitely negative. On one hand, rules should be drawn up and limits are called. Nowadays the research of nuclear weapon is still prohibited, for it might bring about disasters to the human kind along with the technological developments. Science is neutral but when it involves practical application, values should be taken into account. Academic goals are not always coincident with the general benefit of a society. Free as researchers, they have to obey some basic principles. On the other, since the resources are limited, it is indubitable that when several projects are competing for supports, the chances for those help more are bigger. In both two respects, contribution still cannot be abandoned—it has the say when scholars’ and researchers’ interests contradict with the benefit of majority, or when a choice is needed.

In conclusion, contribution is not an effective guide of scientific research. It is proper to allow scholars and researchers to follow their hearts when their consideration is within the basic range of morality. As for those who may jeopardize the benefit of society, there should be some government departments of organizations to draw a bottom line. In addition, it is best, though not very easy, to combine the interests and positive outcome, guaranteeing both the passion of researchers and the welfare of society.

我感觉正文第二段的位置有些问题。
正文第一段是说科研很艰苦，科学家需要兴趣才能坚持下去。
第二段讲科研的贡献不会立刻显现出来，就和兴趣没有太大关系了。
我觉得正文第三段应该改为第二段，同时强调一下科学家应该注重贡献。
接下来在写第二段的内容，说科学也不能太功利。
爱迪生那个例子要把seemingly去掉。这是个有些贬义的词语，你用的是爱迪生的正面形象，不是负面。
总体来说文章写得很好，字数很多。
还有个建议就是尽量避免用：first of all,secondly等词。给人感觉太模式化。
而且如果开篇能用到写成语之类的就更好了。