ISSUE69 随机的呵呵 很有成就感 欢迎互拍

xiongnashiongUID：2359406

分类写法，科学领域分成和生活相关的 和生活无关的
相关的要限制
无关的要放开
TOPIC: ISSUE69 - "Government should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development"
WORDS: 573          TIME: 00:42:00          DATE: 2007-8-15 下午 11:27:25

Should government place no restrictions on science realm? To answer this question, we should focus on the function of scientific research first, what is the purpose and function of science? In my view, science research could be divided into two parts: one is served to settle problems human beings face nowadays, the other serve just for discovering the truth or our universe, our society, and ourselves. And the first one, I think, should receive the supervision of society while the other need not.

At first, I think the science which serve to improve our daily lifes should be restricted by the society. As a common sense, with the development of science, our living environment improve greatly. And this achievement should not only owe to the science but also to the restrictions of government. Because of the existing of regulation, scientifc research is afforded with direction---meet the most pressing needs of the public, and at the same time, prevent it from a ultra state in which trials and truth are the highest standard to evaluate a discovery or theory, rather than ethics and morality. To illustrate this point, we need look no further that the example of clone. While more and more people die from diseases which broken some of human organs, Bio-engineering project s call the attention of whole society since it could provide a new access to the restoration of patients. Of course, supply a new organ to those patients who wait for the death's coming is one of the most pressing mission of this science. So government enact according regulations to encourage research works in this field. However, although it comes out with a good intent, when some ultra scientists claims that they will clone people for a source of perfect organ, sweeping anger and disquiet is stimulated in the public, to prevent this crazy thought from coming true, lots of the countries worldwide again enact new regulations to ban this trend and calm down the public. Suppose that if government take no measure to this type of scientific research, might do our society will withdraw a unbearable impact from science which may destroy the basic ethics and morality of human being.

On the other hand, science involving just exploring the mystery of world and have little to do with our daily life should receive generous treats from the government. Take theoretical physics as an example, while the scientist dedicated in this realm just deal with the essence of the world and ferret out the ruling principles, no restrictions could facilitate them free their imaginations which play the key role in leading to a discovery. John Nash, one of the most famous scientists, might be the dearest beneficiary of no restrictions of no restrictions strategy of Princeton. and also owing to this open mind to science, Princeton is the dreaming place of many scholars where they could do the research they like without limits. Einstein once said :" I am like a lasy bear, taking a rest on the steps of the Class in Princeton". So we could see how important the government should treat the science of pure exploring intent without limit.

In conclusion, whether the government should limit and supervise the scientific research or not due to the trait of specific kinds of science, if it serves to meet the needs of development of society and demands of human being ,then society should do. otherwise, there is no need.

forestlevyUID：2320694

TOPIC: ISSUE69 - "Government should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development"
WORDS: 573          TIME: 00:42:00          DATE: 2007-8-15 下午 11:27:25

Should government place no restrictions on science realm? To answer this question, we should focus on the function of scientific research first, what is the purpose and function of science? In my view, science research could be divided into two parts: one is served to settle problems human beings face nowadays, the other serve just for discovering the truth or our universe, our society, and ourselves. And the first one, I think, should receive the supervision of society while the other need not.(分成现实作用的和探索性的,恩,思路不错...)

At first, I think the science which serve to improve our daily lifes should be restricted by the society. As a common sense, with the development of science, our living environment improve greatly. And this achievement should not only owe to the science but also to the restrictions of government. Because of the existing of regulation, scientifc research is afforded with direction---(是不是应该用不定式?)meet the most pressing needs of the public, and at the same time, prevent it from a ultra state in which trials and truth are the highest standard to evaluate a discovery or theory, rather than ethics and morality. (没懂...)To illustrate this point, we need look no further that the example of clone. While more and more people die from diseases which broken(damage...broke有种打破搞断的感觉...额...) some of human organs, Bio-engineering project s call the attention of whole society since it could provide a new access to the restoration of patients. Of course, supply a new organ to those patients who wait for the death's coming is one of the most pressing mission of this science. So government enact according regulations to encourage research works in this field. However, although it comes out with a good intent, when some ultra scientists claims that they will clone people for a source of perfect organ,(Orz....科幻片看多了...) sweeping anger and disquiet is stimulated in the public, to prevent this crazy thought from coming true, lots of the countries worldwide again enact new regulations to ban this trend and calm down the public. Suppose that if (suppose & if 用一个吧)government take no measure to this type of scientific research, might do our society will withdraw a unbearable impact from science which may destroy the basic ethics and morality of human being.(说的好恐怖...问题是,什么样的科学毁灭了人类的基本道德列....要知道人的道德是变化的..以前解剖尸体是丧尽天良,现在捏? 当时禁止解剖尸体的做法是不是阻碍了人类发展捏? 那么,现在的一些政府调控手段,比如制止克隆人,会不会也如同以前的那些行为一样,不但不能维持所谓的道德,反而阻碍了人类进步捏?)

On the other hand, science involving just exploring the mystery of world and have little to do with our daily life should receive generous treats from the government. Take theoretical physics as an example, (三句不离本行啊...)while the scientist dedicated in this realm just deal with the essence of the world and ferret out the ruling principles, no restrictions could facilitate them free their imaginations which play the key role in leading to a discovery. John Nash, one of the most famous scientists, might be the dearest beneficiary of no restrictions of no restrictions strategy of Princeton. and also owing to this open mind to science, Princeton is the dreaming place of many scholars where they could do the research they like without limits.(这句和下句应该写在给princeton的PS上....) Einstein once said :" I am like a lasy bear, taking a rest on the steps of the Class in Princeton". So we could see how important the government should treat the science of pure exploring intent without limit.(看似有理,实际上嘛...日心说不关生活什么事吧,当时的政府为什么要极力反对捏?换到现在,进化论的争论依旧,大爆炸的假设受到教廷支持,再理论的东西也必定有它的现实意义的，就算不是物质的意义,也有精神层面的意义.)

In conclusion, whether the government should limit and supervise the scientific research or not due to the trait of specific kinds of science, if it serves to meet the needs of development of society and demands of human being ,then society should do. otherwise, there is no need.(本文没问题,5分有了...我嘛,我是比较纠结的人撒...)

http://bbs.gter.ce.cn/bbs/thread-723144-1-1.html 177...这个就更纠结了...


[ 本帖最后由 forestlevy 于 2007-8-16 00:02 编辑 ]

艾宣UID：2348952

tff626UID：2106718

感觉forestlevy评得很精彩；不过不知道你的思路是什么呢？如果将分类稍微改一下：如果不涉及moral等问题就应该尽量少干预，会不会好一点？毕竟现在看来当时社会镇压evolutionary theory, 日心说等追求真理的东西是有他的局限性的。不过你也可以说moral也是随着时代的变化而变化的（正如clone那个例子），不过现在政府决策哪里想得这么远啊~

还有一个角度可以考虑，就是从决策的主体：政府的目标进行分类讨论，不知道是不是更好？

[ 本帖最后由 tff626 于 2007-10-16 06:10 编辑 ]