GRE Practice

[Fredrick Underwood]

Government should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development.​

Yes

1. scientific research can also have negative influences on the society, few restrictions are needed
2. scientific research requires enough freedom, restrictions should be few
3. restrictions can serve as guidance

For me, I totally agree with this recommendation, the restrictions are integral for both research projects and scientists. In the meanwhile, the restrictions have to be few and appropriate, which is due to the importance of freedom in scientific research.

First of all, science is not always beneficial to all humans. For some obvious circumstances, most of the modern weapons with strong power are developed based on some specific scientific breakthroughs. The biological weapons used in World War One had gained the knowledge basis from a series of developments in biology and chemistry. The using of these new theories should be under the guidance from government. Today, the techniques related to gene have acquire much attention, like modifying humans' gene to cure some specific illness. But nobody understanding what will happen after finishing this modification, maybe the side effects are more dangerous, and these side effects are invisible in a short duration. Here, restrictions are needed to avoid the potential threaten to human beings.

On the other hand, the extend and realm of the restrictions should be reasonable and appropriate. In the middle age, science was not accepted by most of people, religion dominated that period of time. So the scientific research was under strict restrictions formulated by church, which was like the government today. Many scientists was forbidden to develop their own theory against the idea in religious texts, like Copernicus, who objected a theory in religious books, was a famous example. That is why it was hard to find extraordinary findings in science during middle age. Those restriction limited the diversity and depth in scientific research, it became impossible to build a new branch in the knowledge system or explore something against the authorization at that time. Due to the reasons above, too heavy restrictions have only negative impact to the world of science.

Also, restrictions' job is not only controlling research topics, they can also serve as a guidance for scientists to develop technology or theory benefiting the society. For example, government always control the research relating to diseases, because of the risks of leaking hazardous substances to outside world. So the techniques used to avoid these leakages of virus can be valuable for researchers in this field. First reason is that the authorities will be keen to fund and support these projects, which means there will be few resistances during the whole project. Another rationale is that this kind of research will be definitely beneficial to this society, and that is the origin intention for everyone in scientific communities.

In conclusion, freedom for science is a guarantee for researchers to develop brand new and world-changing theories or technology. And the restrictions to a certain extend can assure the scientific developments conducive to human society, as well as serve as a guidance for scientists to find the right topics.

I appreciate any comment or advice.

 

[emsr2d2]

Prompt: Government should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development.

Yes.

Even such a short sentence needs a closing punctuation mark. However, this is not how to open an opinion piece. Your text will make it clear whether your answer is "Yes" or "No" to the main question/suggestion.

1. Scientific research can also have a negative influences influence on the society; few restrictions are needed.

You had a comma splice. See my semi-colon above.
I don't understand the logic of your statement, though. If research can have a negative influence, surely more restrictions are required?

2. Scientific research requires enough freedom; restrictions should be few.

Note my changes to your capitalisation and punctuation above.

3. Restrictions can serve as guidance.

I don't know what this means.

For me, I totally agree with this recommendation; the restrictions are integral for to both research projects and scientists. In the meanwhile However, the restrictions have to should be few and appropriate, which is due to the importance of freedom in scientific research.

Note my changes above.

First of all, science is not always beneficial to all humans. For some obvious circumstances, Most of the powerful modern weapons with strong power are were developed based on some specific scientific breakthroughs. The biological weapons used in World War One had gained the knowledge basis from a series of came about thanks to developments in biology and chemistry. The using use of these new theories should be under the guidance from regulated by the government. Today, the medical techniques related to genes, such as modifying human genes to cure some specific illnesses, have acquire have attracted much a lot of attention, but nobody understanding knows what will happen afterwards finishing this modification - maybe the side effects are might be more dangerous, and these side effects are invisible in a short duration might not be seen in the short term. Here In this area of medicine, restrictions are needed to avoid the potential threaten threat to humans. beings.

Note my changes above.

That's all I've got time for at the moment. I'll take a look at the rest later if someone doesn't beat me to it.