issue31 科技类写的就是顺手啊！

zehuaUID：199246

题目：Money spent on research is almost always a good investment, even when the results of that research are controversial
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
Should government spend money on research, even when the results of that research are controversial? In my view, government should spend large sums of money in research. However, due to the unpredictable nature of the research results, we should more focus on solving the immediate emergent problems from the self-economic view.

Generally, money spent on research is a good investment. Human history tells us almost any significant advancement in our living conditions is driven by ground breaking science discoveries and inventions. The industry revolution was driven by discovery of electricity and invention of engine, car and plane. The uncovering of DNA structure led to development of modern biology and genetic engineering. The invention of computer has taken the world into information era—today information is spreading far faster than in the past. By exploring the unknown part of nature, research can make the world a better place to live in, improve human health and security, and at the same time, is very profitable. The invention of vaccine has saved millions of people from death, while making billions of dollars for medicine industry. As long as research is fruitful, it is obviously a good investment.

However, the foci would be too narrow if we over-emphasize on the positive aspects of research, while ignoring the fact that research might contradict our morality, and it might be harmful to our world. The birth of cloned sheep Doli marks a new era of developmental biology, which would possibly bring solutions to organ transplantation rejection. Nevertheless, the technology should obviously be banned when it comes to human cloning, in that it conflicts with morality. Atomic technology could greatly benefit human society when it is applied in electricity generation. Yet at the same time we are worried about spread of atomic bombs, which would be a disaster to the whole world. Almost any technology is a two edged sword, solving certain problems and bringing new trouble to us. As a result, government should try its best to minimize risk while maximizing its benefits.

Another compelling argument is about the unpredictable nature of research results.
Research is the process of inquiry and exploring the unknown. As a result, it would certainly be impossible to predict the research results in advance. Therefore query what are the researches, whose results are controversial? Since we are unable to know this before the results are produced, there should be no argument about investing in research with controversial results at all. Thus what should be the criteria for choosing which research projects to invest and which not to? We should consider this issue from self-economic aspect. Investing on research to solve the emergence problems is far better than on those aimless or costly projects: Investment on curing AIDS or reversing the trend of global warming is obviously more beneficial than atomic weapons.

In the final analysis, the speaker's assertion is partly true. Investing on research is a good investment. However, we should be cautious about certain areas of research contradicting our morality and ethics, or harmful to human world. In addition, since we are unable to know in advance which research results are controversial, our judgment on which research project to invest should be based on whether it can solve emergent existing problems, rather than costly and aimlessly projects.

[ Last edited by zehua on 2005-7-27 at 13:34 ]

dingzjUID：2101797

－－－－－－－zehua's passage－－－－－－－－－－
Should government spend money on research, even when the results of that research are controversial? In my view, government should spend large sums of money in research. However, due to the unpredictable nature of the research results, we should more focus on solving the immediate emergent problems from the self-economic view.

Generally, money spent on research is a good investment. Human history tells us almost any significant advancement in our living conditions is driven by ground breaking science discoveries and inventions. The industry revolution was driven by discovery of electricity and invention of engine, car and plane. The uncovering of DNA structure led to development of modern biology and genetic engineering. The invention of computer has taken the world into information era—today information is spreading far faster than in the past. By exploring the unknown part of nature, research can make the world a better place to live in, improve human health and security, and at the same time, is very profitable. The invention of vaccine has saved millions of people from death, while making billions of dollars for medicine industry. As long as research is fruitful, it is obviously a good investment.(感觉你的举例和观点都是从研究给人类带来方便或好处的方面出发的，忽略了一些这样的研究：Deep Impact实验或物理中夸克的研究等等，这些研究并没有给人类直接带来什么好处，但是确让人类对这个世界了解的更深，这样的研究也非常有意义。是否应该把这个观点也加进去)

However, the foci would be too narrow if we over-emphasize on the positive aspects of research, while ignoring the fact that research might contradict our morality, and it might be harmful to our world. The birth of cloned sheep Doli marks a new era of developmental biology, which would possibly bring solutions to organ transplantation rejection. Nevertheless, the technology should obviously be banned when it comes to human cloning, in that it conflicts with morality. Atomic technology could greatly benefit human society when it is applied in electricity generation. Yet at the same time we are worried about spread of atomic bombs, which would be a disaster to the whole world. Almost any technology is a two edged sword, solving certain problems and bringing new trouble to us. As a result, we should not spend money on harmful researches.(是否有点绝对或矛盾？既然说（由研究所得到的）研究是双刃剑，有好有坏，那么研究总会同时带有好坏两面，怎么单独可能避免坏的呢？改成这样或类似的如何？we should carefully spend money on researches, especially noticing or avoiding its bad effect.)
Another compelling argument is about the unpredictable nature of research results.
Research is the process of inquiry and exploring the unknown. As a result, it would certainly be impossible to predict the research results in advance. Therefore query what are the researches, whose results are controversial? Since we are unable to know this before the results are produced, there should be no argument about investing in research with controversial results at all. Thus what should be the criteria for choosing which research projects to invest and which not to? We should consider this issue from self-economic aspect. Investing on research to solve the emergence problems is far better than on those aimless or costly projects: Investment on curing AIDS or reversing the trend of global warming is obviously more beneficial than atomic weapons.

In the final analysis, the speaker's assertion is partly true. Investing on research is a good investment. However, we should be cautious about certain areas of research contradicting our morality and ethics, or harmful to human world. In addition, since we are unable to know in advance which research results are controversial, our judgment on which research project to invest should be based on whether it can solve emergent existing problems, rather than costly and aimlessly projects.



第一次改，水平有限，呵呵:$

zehuaUID：199246

谢谢！说的有道理啊！下次一定注意！

BloomberryUID：2222785

好强悍啊～～～～～～我过几天就要考了，大概要肉搏了。．．．．．

jasonkidd198581UID：2367114

多谢楼主提供了思路！！！

swa1112UID：2116856

嗯 可不可以像写议论文一样，先定义一个results,怎么样的结果是好的，怎么样的是不好的。 比方文化研究方面对个人意义不大 但是对民族意义重大