ISSUE69 个人感觉写起来有些难，欢迎讨论!

wellboyUID: 2192985

TIME: UNLIMITED   WORD: 531
感觉自己提纲可以很快列出来，但是内容充实起来有些僵硬而且有些东拼西凑的感觉，不知道大家对于这道题目有什么见解没有，欢迎讨论！

Science ought to own a relatively free and open environment, which may to some extent benefit the progress of science. As to the topic that whether the government should place restrictions on sciences, different people may hold various opinions. Some people may claim that government has the responsibility to restrict the scientific research and development as without restrictions there may be chaos, while others may argue that government should place, but only a few restrictions on scientific research and development. In my point of view, I insist that government should not excessively interfere with the scientific research and development, while few restrictions are very necessary.

First of all, few restrictions may motivate the progress of scientific research and development. Our minds are free to think what we want, so do scientists. It is the freedom of scientists to think over what they like. In the history of science, many great discoveries result from creative and imaginative thinking. For example, the gravity law is discovered by Newton from a falling apple. Thus, if few restrictions are placed over the scientific research and development, it will be convenient for scientists to put their lots of creative and imaginative thinking into research. Oppositely, if many restrictions are listed over what is allowed and what is forbidden, many creative thinking may be just flashing thought without becoming reality for the restrictions. Such restraint is not favorable for the progress of science, which should be a free space. Thus, to motivate the progress of scientific it is better to apply few restrictions.

In addition, few restrictions may avail that many scientists' applying their research to practices. Only combined with practice can theory proves its value. So it is better for scientists take the attainments of their research into practice, which may create great social wealth. For example, one of my familiar professors works in an institute. He has put his production on light into the practice of a television company, which results in great success. But in other institutes, many restrictions are placed and it is difficult to apply such kind of fruit to practice. And therefore, great wealth may be created if few restrictions are placed.

However, it is also improper if no restrictions are placed. Science is a two-edged sword. It can have either positive impacts or passive impacts on society. If no restriction was placed, how can we prevent illegal use of science from harm people's interest? For example, the research for making drugs can bring much money for the researcher. No restriction may cause many scientists to make drugs, which greatly do harm to society. And if there is no restriction about scientific research, some scientists may even work on the chemical weapons or biological weapons, which threaten all the humans in the world. So, few restrictions are very necessary.

At last, it is likely that many people still disagree with my opinion. Admittedly, it is fairly difficult for all people to arrive at the same conclusion over such a controversial topic. I just wish what I discussed above could do a little help to people's understanding of the claim that the government should place few restrictions on scientific research and development.

lxmsosUID: 2133854

Science ought to own a relatively free and open environment, which may to some extent benefit the progress of science. As to the topic that whether the government should place restrictions on sciences, different people may hold various opinions. Some people may claim that government has the responsibility to restrict the scientific research and development as without restrictions there may be chaos, while others may argue that government should place, but only a few restrictions on scientific research and development. In my point of view, I insist that government should not excessively interfere with the scientific research and development, while few restrictions are very necessary.

First of all, few restrictions may motivate the progress of scientific research and development. Our minds are free to think what we want, so do scientists. It is the freedom of scientists to think over what they like. In the history of science, many great discoveries result from creative and imaginative thinking. For example, the gravity law is discovered by Newton from a falling apple. Thus, if few restrictions are placed over the scientific research and development, it will be convenient for scientists to put their lots of creative and imaginative thinking into research. Oppositely, if many restrictions are listed over what is allowed and what is forbidden, many creative thinking may be just flashing thought without becoming reality for the restrictions. Such restraint is not favorable for the progress of science, which should be a free space.( Who should be a free space? progress of science or the whole sentence?) Thus, to motivate the progress of scientific it is better to apply few restrictions.

In addition, few restrictions may avail that many scientists' applying their research to practices. Only combined with practice can theory proves its value. So it is better for scientists take the attainments of their research into practice, which may create great social wealth. For example, one of my familiar professors works in an institute. He has put his production on light into the practice of a television company, which results in great success. But in other institutes, many restrictions are placed and it is difficult to apply such kind of fruit to practice. And therefore, great wealth may be created if few restrictions are placed. (很好的例子！）

However, it is also improper if no restrictions are placed. Science is a two-edged sword. It can have either positive impacts or passive impacts on society. If no restriction was （is）placed, how can we prevent illegal use of science from harm people's interest? For example, the research for making drugs can bring much money for the researcher. No restriction may cause many scientists to make drugs, （呵呵，未来的Scientist抗议！Why many scientists study drugs?）which greatly do harm to society. And if there is no restriction about （on）scientific research, some scientists may even work on the chemical weapons or biological weapons, which threaten all the humans in the world. So, few restrictions are very necessary.

At last, it is likely that many people still disagree with my opinion. Admittedly, it is fairly difficult for all people to arrive at the same conclusion over such a controversial topic. I just wish （hope) what I discussed above could do a little help to people's understanding of the claim that the government should place few restrictions on scientific research and development. ( so modesty conclusion, It is good. though!)