issue44 供大家鄙视，消遣，练砖用:)

mack1983UID: 183345

44. Government should not fund any scientific research whose consequences, either medical or ethical, are unclear.

Does the unclear consequence of scientific research guarantee the ignorance of government’s funding, as the speaker states? I don't agree with this contention. Government should fund scientific research whatever consequences it might lead to, and we could get this conclusion from the reasons listed below.

First, funding scientific research is the basic obligation which government should fulfill. As an organization that represents the overall interests of the public, government should mainly consider the development of social benefit and advancement, which are spurred basically by technologies. Furthermore, science is nothing if not a process of exploration to the uncharted areas whose nature makes consequences of research always unpredictable ones. An apt illustration involves the development of genetical engineering. Since for human, it is an indistinct step into the protected zone considered by many religion groups that only God could interfere, its consequence, especially those concerning ethnic, remain covered no matter how much cautious our progress in that area might be. Nevertheless, no government in the world would be stupid enough to shut down the financial support of this field in respect that there are not clear answers for what it would bring about to our ethic. In fact, fears about ethical disasters would not make these consequences become clear, nor technology would benefit from our hesitation; however, research would help us get prepared to face any problems, even disasters we might encounter. And maybe that is one reason, as I believe, that our government should fund scientific research.

Besides, research that holds no interests of economic groups but is essential to the developments of society also requires the funding from government. Market economy only welcomes those bringing about instant rewards; and disciplines, like Quantum Mechanics and basic research in genetical engineering, would be deserted if government pays no attention to it. Admittedly, for example, basic research in genetical engineering would lead to unknown consequence (typically in ethic and medical area), nonetheless, it does not warrant any excuse for government to be blind to its benefits. After all, thought requiring a long period, research of this field would help the country to ascend the technological ladder much rapider, and bring great reward to public welfare as well. Despite of the short-sight of economy, government should be responsible for research of this kind to carry on.

Finally, consider what if government would not fund this research. Firstly, the technological advancement would fall far behind other countries since we take no action of the uncharted area, as already discussed above. Secondly, scientists, especially those with passion, even fascination of their research area, would turn to other groups to get financial support once government stops nurturing the program. In this case, things would become out of control. In democracy, governments are well organized and supervised by public which endows government the rights; therefore, the funding from government would also receive a close supervision from the public. However, once scientists turn for financial help from other organizations- some with despicable purpose and beyond public’s eyes, as we could imagine- research would be lead to different directions against the welfare of the nation. The worse thing is: it would be a great opportunity for warmongers to realize their crazy purpose. Though it might sound like science fiction novel, a point that should never be forgotten is that terrorists around the world nowadays are dreaming of this day.

In sum, as the reasons and example listed above, I believe that government should fund scientific research, no matter if its consequence is clear or not. After all, as long as research is well organized and sent to supervision of the public, we could predict a clear process, thus make the consequence more predictable.

mack1983UID: 183345

自己顶一把，免得被水淹了

花之颜色UID: 187195

先占个座,正在看~

花之颜色UID: 187195

Does the unclear consequence of scientific research guarantee the ignorance of government’s funding, as the speaker states? I don't agree with this contention. Government should fund scientific research whatever consequences it might lead to, and we could get this conclusion from the reasons listed below.

First, funding scientific research is the basic obligation which government should fulfill. As an organization that represents the overall interests of the public, government should mainly consider [U]the development of social benefit and advancement[/U] ,这句有点重复罗嗦 which are spurred basically by technologies. Furthermore, science is nothing if not a process of exploration to the uncharted areas whose nature makes consequences of research always unpredictable ones. An apt illustration involves the development of genetical engineering. Since for human, it is an indistinct step into the protected zone considered by many religion groups that only God could interfere, its consequence, especially those concerning ethnic, remain covered no matter how much cautious our progress in that area might be. Nevertheless, no government in the world would be stupid enough to shut down the financial support of this field in respect that there are not clear answers for what it would bring about to our ethic. In fact, fears about ethical disasters would not make these consequences become clear, nor technology would benefit from our hesitation; however, research would help us get prepared to face any problems, even disasters we might encounter. And maybe that is one reason, as I believe, that our government should fund scientific research.
这段写的很不错,不如把两个分论点拆开各写一段
Besides, research that holds no interests of economic groups but is essential to the developments of society also requires the funding from government. Market economy only welcomes those bringing about instant rewards; and disciplines, like Quantum Mechanics and basic research in genetical engineering, would be deserted if government pays no attention to it. Admittedly, for example, basic research in genetical engineering would lead to unknown consequence (typically in ethic and medical area), nonetheless, it does not warrant any excuse for government to be blind to its benefits. After all, thought requiring a long period, research of this field would help the country to ascend the technological ladder much rapider, and bring great reward to public welfare as well. Despite of the short-sight of economy, government should be responsible for research of this kind to carry on. 怎么又用基因工程啊?而且不太明白这段的论证角度

Finally, consider what if government would not fund this research. Firstly, the technological advancement would fall far behind other countries since we take no action of the uncharted area, as already discussed above. Secondly, scientists, especially those with passion, even fascination of their research area, would turn to other groups to get financial support once government stops nurturing the program. In this case, things would become out of control. In democracy, governments are well organized and supervised by public which endows government the rights; therefore, the funding from government would also receive a close supervision from the public. However, once scientists turn for financial help from other organizations- some with despicable purpose and beyond public’s eyes, as we could imagine- research would be lead to different directions against the welfare of the nation. The worse thing is: it would be a great opportunity for warmongers to realize their crazy purpose. Though it might sound like science fiction novel, a point that should never be forgotten is that terrorists around the world nowadays are dreaming of this day.
这段也很棒

In sum, as the reasons and example listed above, I believe that government should fund scientific research, no matter if its consequence is clear or not. After all, as long as research is well organized and sent to supervision of the public, we could predict a clear process, thus make the consequence more predictable.

coolblazeverestUID: 189260

44. Government should not fund any scientific research whose consequences, either medical or ethical, are unclear.

Does the unclear consequence of scientific research guarantee the ignorance of government’s funding偶认为这句话有点问题，用guarantee感觉不是很合适，不如用sustain the point that…; 同时ignorance是应该人才能做的，而非government funding，并且这么用逻辑关系也有问题，so 我觉得认为应该用withdrawal，改为Does the unclear consequence of scientific research sustain the point of the withdrawal of government’s funding, 不知合不合适，供你参考:D, as the speaker states? I don't agree with this contention. Government should fund scientific research whatever consequences it might lead to, and we could用can get this conclusion from the reasons listed below.

First, funding scientific research is the basic obligation which government should fulfill. As an organization that represents the overall interests of the public, government should mainly consider the development of social benefit and advancement, which are spurred basically by technologies. Furthermore, science is nothing if not a process of exploration to the uncharted areas whose nature makes consequences of research always unpredictable ones. An apt illustration involves the development of genetical engineering基因工程应该是：gene engineering. Since for human, it is an indistinct为什么用这个词？不太清楚 step into the protected zone considered by many religion groups that only God could interfere, its consequence, especially those concerning ethnic这是个形容词，ethnics, remain covered no matter how much cautious our progress in that area might be. Nevertheless, no government in the world would be stupid enough to shut down the financial support of this field in respect that there are not clear answers for what it would bring about to our ethic. In fact, fears about ethical disasters would not make these consequences become clear, nor technology would benefit from our hesitation; however, research would help us get prepared to face any problems, even disasters we might encounter. And maybe that is one reason, as I believe, that our government should fund scientific research.这段的TS说的是政府的责任，但是在furthermore以后的部分就强调的是科学在伦理道德方面的影响，有点偏了

Besides, research that holds no interests of economic groups but is essential to the developments of society also requires the funding from government.其实说的还是government的职责吧 Market economy only welcomes those bringing about instant rewards; and disciplines, like Quantum Mechanics and basic research in genetical engineering对于这个我不敢苟同，其实gene engineering的商业价值及应用价值还是非常大的, would be deserted if government pays no attention to it. Admittedly, for example, basic research in genetical engineering would lead to unknown consequence (typically in ethic and medical area), nonetheless, it does not warrant any excuse for government to be blind to its benefits. After all, thought requiring a long period, research of this field would help the country to ascend the technological ladder much rapider, and bring great reward to public welfare as well. Despite of the short-sight of economy, government should be responsible for research of this kind to carry on.所举的例子并没有说明它是没有商业价值，无人赞助的啊？和ts不符。

Finally, consider what没有谓语啊？what will happen if government would not fund this research. Firstly, the technological advancement would fall far behind other countries since we take no action ofto the uncharted area, as already discussed above. Secondly, scientists, especially those with passion, even fascination ofabout their research area, would turn to other groups to get financial support once government stops nurturing这个词感觉不是非常合适，financing/investing呢 the program. In this case, things would become out of control. In democracy, governments are well organized and supervised by public which endows government the rights; therefore, the funding from government would also receive a close supervision from the public. 这之前和之后的逻辑关系不是很明确However, once scientists turn for financial help from other organizations- some with despicable purpose and beyond public’s eyes用out of control吧, as we could imagine- research would be lead to different directions against the welfare of the nation. The worse thing is: it would be a great opportunity for warmongers to realize their crazy purpose. Though it might sound like science fiction novel, a point that should never be forgotten is that terrorists around the world nowadays are dreaming of this day.反面证明投资的重要性，思路很新。不过，有个问题，题目强调的是政府是否投资consequence unclear的research，而不投资，造成的结果必然会有这种研究对我们自身安全及生存的影响，而搂住所提到的危险分子的投资所造成的危害，也是基于对这方面的考虑，但是，文章中并没有反映出来这种影响。

In sum, as the reasons and example listed above, I believe that government should fund scientific research, no matter ifno matter if 换成whether its consequence is clear or not. After all, as long as research is well organized and sent to supervision用supervised替换sent to supervision ofby the public, we could predict a clear process, thus make the consequence more predictable.


搂住的文章结构比较清晰，用词也不落俗套，尤其几个连词用的很新颖，但有几个问题：
1句间的逻辑关系不是很明确
2语言上有一些小毛病
3 ts的引领做得不是很理想

嘻嘻，其实以上几点我做得也不是很好，有什么不同意见，欢迎拍回来！:D

今天偶刚考完期末试，几天没写作文了，等我写好了，欢迎报复！！;)

kkytUID: 188814

:p刚考完科学技术哲学及自然辩证法,偶也来说几句
一方面,科研本来就是一种探索性的活动,具有很高的风险和失败率,任何人不可能事先知道其结果.另一方面科研工作最终是为满足社会需求或科学本身发展需要,因此那些结果过于模糊的是不应该支持的,如各种冷战军备竞赛美国星球大战计划等,反倒不如将钱投到解决社会急需解决的问题,象爱滋病等

mack1983UID: 183345

嗯，谢谢大家的中肯的意见，我仔细考虑考虑再和大家讨论。

mack1983UID: 183345

先想到的一点是关于coolblazeverest的 对于这个我不敢苟同，其实gene engineering的商业价值及应用价值还是非常大的 意见。
是这样的，因为认识几个生物系的同学，就是搞基因工程的基础研究的（强调了基础哦:)），他们说那玩艺儿要是没有政府投资，谁也不会做，比如类似于碱基测序什么的，因为从对已碱基测序到实际通过测定的序列进行应用还有很长的路要走，哪个企业也不会投资于这个无底洞。所以我就由上面的论点。

不过，呵呵，我刚开始听到基因工程的时候，也觉得好像满地都是钱，看来这个例子不是很popular，我还是改改好了。:)

naiba369UID: 131655

呵呵,清华的牛哥们,

呵呵,占座先:D

mack1983UID: 183345

关于could还是can的问题，因为自己陈述的只是自己的论点，别人并不一定同意（当然，若是绝世高手可以写成让别人原先特别反感到成为你的观点的铁杆支持者），然而我不是。只好用委婉一点的语气说了。

关于基因工程，同意coolblazeverest！我写的时候自己造的，呵呵。

我第二个分论点同样是政府职责，但第一个分论点主要是说科学研究本来就是一个未知的过程，第二个则是说一些基础研究如果没有政府支持的话就会陷入危机，因为市场经济只会将有限的资源投入那些见效快的行业。

对于what if 的用法，我弄错了，一般在口语上才这么用的。

coolblazeverestUID: 189260

About gene engineering, I want to put forward my opinion, because of the development of technology and maturity of theory, there are increasing application of this technology, especially in physic and botany. It is totally possible that the medicines and vegetables which we consume are processed by gene engineering. Because of my major, I always use those kinds of examples in my essay, I am also confused that if I throw out some specilized or professional instances in the essay, will it bring colors to my essay or just opposite...  :(