Issue44 科研投资:标准、原则-主体：政府

dezhiUID: 156141

Issue44科研投资:标准、原则-主体：政府
------摘要------
作者：dezhi     共用时间：45分1秒     590 words
从2004年2月15日11时0分到2004年2月15日11时45分
------题目------
Government should not fund any scientific research whose consequences, either medical or ethical, are unclear.
------提纲------
Position: Disagree
1、作者之所以认为如此，是因为很多研究确实给人类带来了灾难，政府不应该对这些研究给予支持。比如二战中的细菌武器。
2、但大部分科技探索，在未成功前其作用都不明了，如果一项研究在作之前结果就已经很明确了，那它也就失去研究的必要了，所作的也不过是对已知结论的验证罢了。
3、正确的方法是对科学研究进行投资，但一旦发现有问题，可能对社会造成重大危害时，就加以限制使其向好的方向发展，或者直接撤回以它的投资。一个例子是对核能的利用。
------正文------
Should government not give financial support to any scientific research whose influence on the society and people are unclear, just as the speaker asserts? As far as I am concerned, I fundamentally disagree with this statement. Let me give my evidence as follows.

Firstly, I concede that many scientific researches under evil scientists and governors did do harm to the society in history. As is known to all, the science is a sword with two sides, either do good or do harm to the society. Thus, it is really unfortunate that many inventions and research works are further investigated for the military purpose or other evil goals, bringing death, starvation, and war to us. Take the chemical weapons invented in the World War II for example. These inventions were made under the scientific knowledge of chemistry, which had brought many useful and convenient materials to the daily lives of human beings. However, this time, they were used to kill the enemy soldiers in a short time to win a battle, whose powerful effects brought horror to all the people in the world. If such scientific research got support from the government furthermore, it is hard to imagine what our earth would be tomorrow.

However, the unclear negative effects of some scientific researches do not mean the absence of the government's attention. Most researches needs exploring, whose effects on society and humans are unclear before the results turn out. If some research was certain to become beneficial or harmful before it was made, it was no longer necessary to pay money for further research and what to do is just verification of the result. As a result, government should not take the money back from researches for the simple reason that their consequences are still unclear. For example, in the field of medicine, the invention of a new medicine is really a adventurous process. No one knows whether a new medicine can cure a certain disease, or just bring a person to death. But the governments should not hesitate to fund these subjects. With the support from the government, the scientists can experiment the new medicine on a variety of animals, even humans sometimes, to make its effects clear to determine whether it is worth producing in large quantities as practical medicine or not. No doubt that scientific research needs funding even though their consequences are unclear.

In addition, government's careful funding can greatly promote the development of scientific research, amplifying the positive effects of it while reducing the negative influence to the least. Almost all of the research works have both the positive and negative effects, which needs to be identified and carefully solved. The government can support any scientific research when the influence of their results is still open to doubt. However, as long as the research turns out to be harmful to the society or human beings, measures ought to be taken to prohibit it. Governments can guide the research towards the beneficial purpose rejecting the harmful approach, and reduce or sometimes even redraw all of the money spent on the subject. When nuclear weapons are made to destroy humans themselves, no more money should be wasted at such areas; On the contrary, it can be used to support researches to utilize nuclear power to solve the fuel problem.

To sum up, government should fund scientific researches whose consequences are still unclear. As long as the scientific researches can go under control of the government, funding on them will benefit the society and human beings after all.

xqmelissaUID: 140370

Should government not give financial support to any scientific research whose influence on the society and people are unclear, just as the speaker asserts? As far as I am concerned, I fundamentally disagree with this statement. If you use “as far as I am concerned”, the subject of next clause should not be “I” Let me give my evidence evidences as follows.

Firstly, I concede that many scientific researches under evil scientists and governors 用evil形容许多政府？太绝对化了 did cut down “did” do harm to the society in history. As is known to all, As we know the science is a sword with two sides, either do good or do harm to the society. Thus, it is really unfortunate that many inventions and research works researches are further investigated for the military purpose or other evil goals, bringing death, starvation, and war to us. Take the chemical weapons invented in the World War II for example. These inventions were made under the scientific knowledge of chemistry, which had brought many useful and convenient materials to the daily lives of human beings. However, this time, they were used to kill the enemy soldiers in a short time to win a battle, whose powerful effects brought horror to all the people in the world. If such scientific research got support from the government furthermore, it is hard to imagine what our earth would be tomorrow.

However, the unclear negative effects of some scientific researches do not mean the absence of the government's attention. Most researches needs need exploring, whose effects on society and humans are unclear before the results turn turning out. If some research was certain to become beneficial or harmful before it was made, it was no longer necessary to pay money for further research and what to do is just verification of the result. As a result, government should not take the money back from researches for the simple reason that their consequences are still unclear. For example, in the field of medicine, the invention of a new medicine is really a an adventurous process. No one knows whether a new medicine can cure a certain disease, or just bring a person to death. But the governments should not hesitate to fund these subjects. With the support from the government, the scientists can experiment the new medicine on a variety of animals, even humans sometimes, to make its effects clear clearly to determine whether it is worth producing in large quantities as practical medicine or not. No doubt that scientific research needs funding even though their consequences are unclear. 这句话怎么就一个No doubt然后引导从句了？应该是：No doubt do scientific research need -----

In addition, government's careful funding can greatly promote the development of scientific research, amplifying the positive effects of it while reducing the negative influence to the least. Almost all of the research works Almost all researches have both the positive and negative effects, which needs to be identified and carefully solved. The government can support any scientific research when the influence of their results is still open to doubt. However, as long as the research turns out to be harmful to the society or human beings, measures ought to be taken to prohibit it. Governments can guide the research towards the beneficial purpose rejecting the harmful approach, and reduce or sometimes even redraw all of the money spent on the subject. When nuclear weapons are made to destroy humans themselves, cut down “themselves” no more money should be wasted at such areas; On the contrary, it can be used to support researches to utilize nuclear power to solve the fuel problem.
本段要论述政府需要对科学研究进行引导，但是例子举的有点缺乏说服力

To sum up, government should fund scientific researches whose consequences are still unclear. As long as the scientific researches can go under control of the government, funding on them will benefit the society and human beings after all.


总体而言，写的还可以，语言上大问题不多，不过要注意一下时态、语态的问题。
思路比较清晰，不过上来就先做让步，是不符合西方人的思维习惯的，详细的见我昨天的帖子：
https://bbs.gter.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=173515

继续努力！

dezhiUID: 156141

强烈感谢xqmelissa！
1、“ If you use “as far as I am concerned”, the subject of next clause should not be “I””
　　我知道了！
2、“Most researches needs－－＞ need exploring”，
　　“a －－＞an adventurous process”
　　竟然这么多低级错误，汗~~~
3、“before the results turn －－＞turning out.”
　　我觉得用turn就可以吧，不需要用从句吧
4、“这句话怎么就一个No doubt然后引导从句了？应该是：No doubt do scientific research need --”
　　看来我还要好好看看倒装！

aerozxyUID: 142241

Should government not give financial support to any scientific research whose influence on the society and people are unclear, just as the speaker asserts? As far as I am concerned, I fundamentally disagree with this statement. Let me give my evidence as follows.

Firstly, I concede that many scientific researches under （用undertake是不是要好点）evil scientists and governors （感觉用政治家比较好）did do harm to the society in history. As is known to all, the science is a sword with two sides,（two-sided sword） either do good or do harm to the society. Thus, it is really unfortunate that many inventions and research works are further investigated for the military purpose or other evil goals, bringing death, starvation, and war to us. Take the chemical weapons invented in the World War II for example. These inventions were made under the scientific knowledge of chemistry, which had brought many useful and convenient materials to the daily lives of human beings. However, this time, they were used to kill the enemy soldiers in a short time to win a battle, whose powerful effects brought horror to all the people in the world. If such scientific research got support from the government furthermore, it is hard to imagine what our earth would be tomorrow.

However, the unclear negative effects of some scientific researches do not mean the absence of the government's attention. （开头这句话比较别扭）Most researches needs exploring, whose effects on society and humans are unclear before the results turn out. If some research was certain （certainly）to become beneficial or harmful before it was made, it was no longer necessary to pay money for further research and what （+need好一点）to do is just verification of the result. As a result, （这个看不明白，下面是上面假设的结果吗，我看用from this point of view 比较好，如果不是你下面好像不该用否定句吧）government should not take the money back from researches for the simple reason that their consequences are still unclear. For example, in the field of medicine, the invention of a new medicine is really a adventurous process. No one knows whether a new medicine can cure a certain disease, or just bring a person to death.（致死太绝对了吧，感觉不能和前面并列） But the governments should not hesitate to fund these subjects. With the support from the government, the scientists can experiment （不是及物动词）the new medicine on a variety of animals, even humans sometimes, to make its effects clear to determine whether it is worth producing in large quantities as practical medicine or not. No doubt that （Undoubtedly）scientific research needs funding even though their consequences are unclear.

In addition, government's careful funding can greatly promote the development of scientific research, amplifying the positive effects of it while reducing the negative influence to the least. Almost all of the research works have both the positive and negative effects, which needs to be identified and carefully solved. The government can support any scientific research when the influence of their results is still open to doubt. However, as long as the research turns out to be harmful to the society or human beings, measures ought to be taken to prohibit it. Governments can guide the research towards the beneficial purpose （and）rejecting the harmful approach, and reduce or sometimes even redraw （withdraw）all of the money spent on the subject. When nuclear weapons are made to destroy humans themselves, no more money should be wasted at such areas; On the contrary, it can be used to support researches to utilize nuclear power to solve the fuel problem.

To sum up, government should fund scientific researches whose consequences are still unclear. As long as the scientific researches can go under control of the government, funding on them will benefit the society and human beings after all.

这篇文章感觉题目比较难理解，我认为论述的时候
还是应该考虑一下medical or ethical的影响，毕竟题干中
提到了两个方面。

第四次看你的文章，能在45分钟内写这么多真不错，
论证思路也比较清晰，就是文笔差了点，可能速度和
流畅的文笔两难全吧！
我今天也写了这篇，待会贴上来