ISSUE 36 Governments should not fund any scientific research whose

skywongchiuUID: 3261705

本帖来自"14年秋季GRE提纲+全文互改小组"，欢迎关注！你还可以查看更多小组、创建小组

Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.

相关题目：72
请回帖时按照指引( https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1777364-1-1.html )列出英语提纲并用汉语解释并根据指引点评楼上的提纲。 第一个回帖的同学不必点评

skywongchiuUID: 3261705

How the government funding should be used is a critically controversial issue in our planet. Proponents of scientific development argue that since scientific research would advance human living standards, it is no reason to object to allocate government funding to this area regardless of the clarity of the research’s consequences. On the contrary, opponents state that the funding should be used on the scientific or non-scientific areas that the consequences of the research are clear while compared with an unclear consequence of scientific research project. I confess that the clarity of the consequences of the scientific research is one of the important factors affecting the allocation of government resource. However, it is not the only variable to judge the allocation of resource. Personally, I argue that the allocation of limited government resources should also consider the concept of using the scarce funding appropriately and the concept of emergency of the need to approach scientific research.

I confess that it is true that under the limitation of the government funding, the government should allocate the scarce resource to the scientific research with clear consequences. 基於有限資金這一前提之下, 政府需要評估如何有效地運用資金。The clarity of the consequences of科學研究就是其中一個會被利用來量度資金運用的效力的變量。毕竟, 一個後果清晰的科學研究較不清晰的科學OR非科學的研究更能確保資金運用的有效性。所以, 這方面的假說是有說服力的。

However, the administration of the allocation of resource is also affected by the consideration of using the scarce funding appropriately. While a given territory government has extra reserves of funding after the allocation of fresource to the foundational expenditures such as educational and health care expenditures, the government should fund the scientific research regardless of its clarity. 毕竟, 科學研究可以為當地人們帶來一個更好的生活質素。投入資金資助科學家進行科學研究, 長遠來說, 科學家的發明的產品會改善人們生活的方式。這一概念和政府行政的目標一致。因此, 在上述的情況之下, 政府理應支持科學研究。For example, 受惠於新的鋰電池沖電的方法, 電子產品便用者只需要一段較短的時間(相對舊的方法)為電池沖電。這一個新的方法就是受惠於有財政盈利的政府 － such as Japan and South Korea – 的支持。

Furthermore, emergence is another critical factor determining the government action of funding the scientific research. 科學研究的其中一個主要目標就是幫助人類處理緊急的困局OR難題。更準確地說, 只有科學研究可以幫助人類解決迫在眉睫的難題。當一個問題只有科學研究才可以解決的話, 不論成本多少 和 計劃的後果的清晰度, 政府都是應該支持的。For example, 基於大部份能源都是不可以再生的, 和人類對能源的消耗不斷上升, 各國政府都理應資助科學家進行各式各樣有關能源開發的科學研究。只有不斷地支持研究, 新的能源才有機會被發明。人類對能源不斷上升的需要才可以解決。

skywongchiuUID: 3261705

王老師comment: 只專注於Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear, 不要把題目想成government should fund clear projects。因為這樣做的話, 很容易犯離題的毛病。其二, 把scientific research 分成theoretical and practical research去論說。其三, 可以把government and private/business sector 作一個比較, e.g 他們各自的責任。

修改後的提網:

Should the government not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear? It is contingent on the types of scientific research. While the scientific research is related to the practical studies, business sector would fund the project even if the consequences are unclear. Under this condition, the government should not fund the research work. However, while the scientific research is related to the theoretical studies, government should fund the research that the consequences are unclear. This is because the business would not be willing to fund the research work. Besides, while there is an urgency to approach the scientific research, government should fund the work without the consideration of the available source of capital from the business sector.

Government should not fund the scientific researches that are related to practical studies. On the one hand, government funding is limited and putting the resource on one project means that the resource can be put on other areas will be reduced or limited. On the other hand, practical research always associates with generous profits even if the consequences of the project is not clear, which totally attract the profit-oriented business sector’s interests. With or without the government support, the business sector will finance the scientific researchers to approach the work. Under this condition, government should not use her limited resource to fund the practical research. For example, the connection of the Internet and the glasses study has a real and solid function for our daily life, but the consequences of the project is not clear such as the research would not know how many time and resource will be needed to approach the research. However, since the project associates with a handsome return while it is completed. This study hence attracts lots of reputed business companies – such as Google and IMB – to fund the project. At the end, Google-glasses is invented and it is named after its major supporter. In other word, even though the government does not fund the practical research, researchers can be able to find alternative funding.   

However, while the scientific researches is related to theoretical studies – such as whether democracy is the best means to administrate states or whether power is a meaningful concept in the modern life – government should fund the work because no alternative funding will be available in the market. 不論後果清楚or不清楚, 理論性的科學研究並不會為投資者帶來金錢上的回報。因此, 商人是不傾向支持這一種研究的。可是, 理論性的科學研究可以令我們更加認識理論性的知識和投資理論性的科學研究可以鼓励更多科學人員參與理論性的研究。在這一些絛件之下, 政府理應利用資金支持理論性的科學研究。

While there is an urgency to approach the scientific research, government should fund the work without the consideration of its clearness of objective and the potential alternative source of capital support. 例如, 政府理應支持Ebola virus (伊波拉病毒)的研究。一方面, 我們迫切地需要新的vaccine 處理這種病毒。另一方面, 政府沒有空時間評估商人會否支持這種研究。病者會在感染數十小時後便死亡。在這情況之下, 政府理應馬上支持研究whenever the objectives and the consequences are unclear or not.  

tesolchinaUID: 2191404

感觉面谈的效果是不是比语音要好

相关题

72) Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear.
Write a response in which you discuss your views on the policy and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider the possible consequences of implementing the policy and explain how these consequences shape your position.

skywongchiuUID: 3261705

tesolchina 发表于 2014-12-8 01:02
感觉面谈的效果是不是比语音要好

相关题

謝謝王老師提點, 有時候看網上題庫都分不清重複的題目