ISSUE69 政府应不应该干预研究。呼呼，第一次限时。谢谢Galaxy Song 的软件

denneUID: 156313

Issue69  第1篇 让砖头来得更猛烈些吧！
------摘要------
作者：寄托家园作文版普通用户     共用时间：45分5秒     447 words
从2004年2月22日11时1分到2004年2月22日11时45分
------题目------
Government should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development
------正文------
Nowadays, our society is experiencing the third industrial revolution. Nearly everyday, tremendous scientific discoveries and technology advances come out. The society' s customs and people' s lives is facing great changes. Then, is the government should place few restrictions on scientific research and development? In my opinion, it is obvious not and the government should restrict the research and development to some extent.

In the first place, it is the government's natural duty to control and modify the direction of the scientific research and development. The main function of the society is to restrict the society and stands for it. On the contrary, the science is to explore the mystery and discovery the unknown world. In this sense, the science is not concern about whether the result is beneficial to the society or not. Under this circumstance, the government should determine whether to restrict the research or not. Take human cloning for example, which is a controversy nowadays. We must admit that human cloning has a very attractive future.  For instance, it will be very useful in the transplant operation, and then human beings could live longer and healthier. However, on the other hand, it will address our society to a ethical and moral dilemma. Supposing a child is cloned with your cell, what is the relationship between he and your wife? Thus, the government should consider the advantages and disadvantages of this research. Since the disadvantages win over the advantages, the government should restrict it.

In addition, the total funds are limited, so the government should invest the outlay into more practical programs which could solve the immediate problems. The main purpose of the scientific research and development is to make people's lives more comfortable and convenient. So the limited funds should spend on the research which is more relevant to our lives. For example, China spend a lot of funds on the research of the foodstuff. Then the result is obvious. It is autarkic in the country with a population of 1.3 billion. On the contrary, some countries think that nuclear bombs are necessary to defend them from any serious emergency. Such countries go out of the way, even if the economic conditions do not permit. It will address such countries to crash if the government does not restrict these researches.

Admittedly, sometimes the programs which seems a waste of money turn out to have tremendous relevant to our life. So when the government determine to restrict some research ,it should consider it carefully.

In sum, in my opinion, the government should restrict the scientific research and development to some extent. But it is true that the government should consider all the aspects of a program.

九月爱上乒乓球UID: 151821

Nowadays, our society is experiencing the third industrial revolution. Nearly everyday, tremendous scientific discoveries and technology advances come out. The society' s customs and people' s lives is facing great changes. (这两句话不够精炼,多余信息)Then, [U]is the government should [/U] (语法错了) place few restrictions on scientific research and development? In my opinion, [U]it is obvious not and the government should restrict the research and development to some extent[/U] .(句式不平衡)
开头应当有效回应主题

In the first place, it is the government's natural(这个词不好) duty to control and modify the direction of the scientific research and development. The main function of the society is to restrict the society and stands for it.(应该是支持和限制,调换一下次序) 没有论证On the contrary, the science is to explore the mystery and discovery(discover) the unknown world. In this sense, the science [U]is not concern about [/U](be concerned with 关于)  whether the result is beneficial to the society or not. Under this circumstance, the government should determine whether to restrict the research or not. Take human cloning for example, which is a controversy nowadays. [B]We must admit that human cloning has a very attractive future. For instance, it will be very useful in the transplant operation, and then human beings could live longer and healthier. However, on the other hand, it will address our society to a ethical and moral dilemma. Supposing a child is cloned with your cell, what is the relationship between he and your wife? [/B] (应该用更浓缩的语言概括) Thus, the government should consider the advantages and disadvantages of this research. Since(If) the disadvantages win over(overweigh) the advantages, the government should restrict it.

In addition, the total funds are limited, so the government should invest the outlay into more practical programs which could solve the immediate problems. The main purpose of the scientific research and development is to make people's lives more comfortable and convenient. So the limited funds should spend(be spent) on the research which is more relevant to our lives. For example, China spend a lot of funds on the research of the foodstuff. Then the result is obvious. It is autarkic in the country with a population of 1.3 billion. On the contrary, some countries think that nuclear bombs are necessary to defend them from any serious emergency. Such countries go out of the way, even if the economic conditions do not permit. It will address such countries to crash if the government does not restrict these researches.(例子有点偏激)

Admittedly, sometimes the programs which seems a waste of money turn out to have tremendous relevant to our life. So when the government determine to restrict some research ,it should consider it carefully.(how??)
时间是不是不够了 :)  

In sum, in my opinion, the government should restrict the scientific research and development to some extent. But it is true that the government should consider all the aspects of a program.

提纲: 1政府的职能就是控制,干涉研究; 科学本身不记后果
     2 资金有限,政府应该更注重更加实际的研究
     3 应该慎重 因为有些研究一时看不到效果
逻辑性不够,论证也不足. 第一段没有很好的展开
第三和第二点似乎有点矛盾 也可能是解释的不够
思路不够清晰 应该再想想提纲

sweetxllUID: 150490

------正文------
Nowadays, our society is experiencing the third industrial revolution. Nearly everyday, tremendous scientific discoveries and technology advances come out. The society' s customs and people' s lives is facing great changes. Then, is the government should place few restrictions on scientific research and development? In my opinion, it is obvious not and the government should restrict the research and development to some extent.（这句话不通）

In the first place, it is the government's natural duty to control and modify the direction of the scientific research and development. （这里是不上可以展开一点，制定什么policy等）The main function of the society is to restrict the society and stands for it. （这句是不是有点多余，而且放在这里让人读了不知道是什么意思，有点中国英语的感觉）On the contrary, the science is to explore the mystery and discovery the unknown world. In this sense, the science is not concern about whether the result is beneficial to the society or not. Under this circumstance, the government should determine whether to restrict the research or not. Take human cloning for example, which is a controversy nowadays. We must admit that human cloning has a very attractive future. For instance,（这里应该不是举例，换成such as，或者including 是不是好点） it will be very useful in the transplant operation, and then human beings could live longer and healthier. However, on the other hand, it will address our society to a ethical and moral dilemma. Supposing a child is cloned with your cell, what is the relationship between he and your wife? Thus, the government should consider the advantages and disadvantages of this research. Since the disadvantages win over the advantages, the government should restrict it.（总体感觉有例子，但很空洞，是不是可以用点正反论证，如果政府控制了会这样，否则后果会这么样，分析更深刻一些，也可以加一些问句来加强句子）

In addition, the total funds are limited, so the government should invest the outlay into more practical programs which could solve the immediate problems. The main purpose of the scientific research and development is to make people's lives more comfortable and convenient. So the limited funds should spend on the research which is more relevant to our lives. For example, China spend a lot of funds on the research of the foodstuff（你这里是想说中国是个农业大国，政府要拿出钱来发展农业吗？. ）Then the result is obvious. It is autarkic in the country with a population of 1.3 billion. （这个例子还可以正反发展一下，字数就多了，内容也丰富罗勒）On the contrary, some countries think that nuclear bombs are necessary to defend them from any serious emergency. Such countries go out of the way, even if the economic conditions do not permit. It will address such countries to crash if the government does not restrict these researches.（这个例子和题目的关系不上很紧密，而且我也不明白是什么意识放在这里，没有好好的分析说明一下）

Admittedly, sometimes the programs which seems a waste of money turn out to have tremendous relevant to our life. （这句最好改改， 读的不是很通，你觉得呢？）So when the government determine to restrict some research ,it should consider it carefully.（So government should consider carefully before determining which research deserves to restrict)

In sum, in my opinion, the government should restrict the scientific research and development to some extent. But it is true that the government should consider all the aspects of a program.

总的来说有思路，但内容不深刻，不、每句好象都只说了一半，感觉大家都明白似的，只是点到为止，作文的关键在于论证过程，不要认为大家知道的，就只说一半话，这样字数也少，分析的也不够
在就是语言可以改进一下吗。句子很多都太短，而且有很重的中国人说话的顺序，想竹子一样一节一节的，外国人说话应该是想葡萄一串一串的，而且比较喜欢把结果先说；
例子举的时候应该在具体一点，对例子的分析也要加强。

下面是我的提纲：
欢迎指教，呵呵
政府应该在科学研究方面起positive role
1.government 应该提供funding 给大规模的研究用。因为大规模的研究一般都是对人民有很大的利益的，而如果专门考几个专家或社会community, institution 去donation 资金是有限的，起不到帮助大多数人的效果，举例就用SARS，如果政府不拿出钱来研究，其后果是严重的。。。。。因此这种时候政府不能说为了不Interfere 科学的自由，而让人民朝秧

2。政府应该组织科学家solve the most urgest problem.就举例cloning,一方面他是科学的成果，另一方面他又社会上引起了ethical or moral controversy.这时候政府就要站出来制定一个方案看是怎么解决总不能人门老是争下去。反问，大家总不会希望世界上又多几个hitler在来制造一次世界大战吧
3.of course, 政府也不能I过多的nterfere 科学的自由。因为科学的研究是没有边界的，你不能说让一个物理学家只能研究物理，也不能让自己国家的人不和外国的交流这样是不合理的阻碍了科学的发展。in addition, 科学的研究结果有时候是超乎常人的想象的，even在某个时代被看成是做的，就想copernicus的地日说，因为不被当时的政府说理解，就把它kill, 导致很多年后才被人们说看到。从这个例子我们可以看到，政府在kill科学成果之前要谨慎，否则就会象这样延缓了科学的发展。
这是本人的提纲，你看看有什么不妥之处提出来

九月爱上乒乓球UID: 151821

楼上的, 我认为你有走题的嫌疑啊!! (你好象是按照孙远的提纲来得哦~~)
题目应该是让我们讨论是否应该限制科学研究和发展,而不是说政府应该起着怎样的作用
题目的key word 是 restriction

sweetxllUID: 150490

谢谢楼上的
我也觉得我的第一点离题远了，本来要好好的改改

denneUID: 156313

谢谢九月爱上乒乓球与sweetxll

例子展不开，论证不够深入这几乎是我issue的通病，而直接后果是字数不够
关于展开，到底应该如何做呢？有没有固定一点的套路什么的？
展开是说逻辑展开还是例子展开呢？

sweetxll，你说我每句话都好像只说了一半，能举个小例子吗？我很迷茫的说，谢谢了：））
你的提纲，我觉得九月爱上乒乓球说得很对，至少从中文来看没有很好的回应restrict，当然我觉得可能在具体写作中在中心句上紧扣restrict，也应该还行，我觉得我们的提纲思路差不多，只是表达上的差异。

九月爱上乒乓球，你说的第二点和第三点矛盾，我觉得是表达上面的问题。这个很容易引起误会。我通常最后做一个让步或者建议，唉，也是没有东西说。

speedfirstUID: 141547

我的提纲：
1. 对社会和人类，以及国家利益有利的研究，政府应当鼓励，但要适当控制规模，为了保证人民的基本生活水平。（不能本末倒置吧。让全国人民饿肚子，却要开发高科技武器不就是苏联的做法么）
2.对于那些无聊或无知的研究，政府要极力管制和劝阻。例如有一阵子我国流行水变油的研究（当然都是老百姓），还有就是尺规作图三等分角的研究（已经严格证明不可能，可还是总有人做）
3. 归根到底，研究的资金和需求很多都来自政府。政府对研究的限制程度应有一个标准：是否对人民社会有利。应当具体问题具体分析。

九月爱上乒乓球UID: 151821

楼上的 我又挑毛病咯
你的第一点是说 对国家有利益的 第三点又说标准是对人民社会有利益 是不是矛盾?
另外 你在第三点的提出的 具体情况具体分析是个好论点 是不是应该放在开头写??

jiaomaoUID: 155041

嗯，嗯
我也正在发愁这个问题呢（31，44，69共同的问题）

我有个问题想不明白，请大家指点一二：

大家都说要限制不好的研究，有一定的规范准则，但是究竟怎样界定研究的好和坏？
符合人民利益，道德标准，，，，，？？
你被原子蛋炸了，你说它不好，你国家被人侵略了，你拿个炸弹把人家炸了就是好？
克隆你你说冒牌了，但是万一你要换个心脏啊，肺啊什么的，他就好？
道德标准这种东西有既受时间局限又受国家种族地域文化，，，，一大堆东西限制的东西怎么界定？
我想举个该限制的研究来，想来想去想不出什么是绝对对人民有害无益的，唯一想到的就是日本鬼子拿我们中国人做生化试验，但是对于整个世界来说，也许人体试验有时也是必须的，为了发明新药什么的，为了发明个疫苗什么的，，，，，，，，，，，


唉，晕了