vanmtcristo
Member
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2015
- Member Type
- Student or Learner
- Native Language
- Dutch
- Home Country
- Netherlands
- Current Location
- Canada
The Prompt is:
Governments should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
Body:
The nature of scientific research can be concluded as enigmatic and unpredictable. If a Government wants science to prosper, it has to let loose its control to make all possibilities happen. By tightening its control, it can severely hamper the overall progress of science without realizing it. Although some people still argue that government restrictions are necessary, uncovering the evidence from history would prove them wrong.
The people who support government restrictions ignore the fact that government is not all mighty. Officials on the top may not know much better than the ordinaries, not to mention the science and technology in a specific field. When Frank Whittle, a RAF officer first proposed his plan of a turbo engine to the British Air Force, he was told that his idea was infeasible. He then had to raise funds and conduct the test on his own. Realizing its initial success, the RAF then stepped in to sponsor the program. This is a clear proof that the departments on top may not be aware of the next coming breakthrough, and should therefore put no restrictions on those who want to give their ideas a chance.
History provides many examples on how science would prosper if there were no government restrictions. For a long time, due to the strict control of the Catholic Church, people were told to believe that the sun orbits around the earth. Only the scientific research supporting the Catholic principles were allowed, and the others that serve the opposite purpose were under close restrictions. A scientist born in Poland named Copernicus, however, through his observations had realized that it should be the earth that orbits around the sun, not the vice versa. Even though it could have been a major discovery, the restrictions forbade him to publish his ideas until his death. His theory was then supported by discoveries made by other scientists like Galileo under immense pressure from the Church. If there was not a strict control of the Church over science, the people’s knowledge of astronomy would have undoubtedly developed more rapidly.
Besides the discovery of Copernicus, the discovery of gun powder is another example of triumph of science over government restriction. In ancient China, the practice of alchemy had prevailed, but then restricted. The government viewed alchemy as sheer nonsense and did not believe if it would generate any favorable results. Some, however, persisted with their practice and conducted them secretly. One time during an experiment, the “lab” exploded, which soon arose people’s awareness. The alchemy test was undoubtedly a failure, but the unforeseen result was just what the government would have dreamed of: a more devastating weapon. Had everyone obeyed the government restriction, gun powder, which made so much societal changes would come into existence much later.
In conclusion, it is clear that governments should not put restrictions on science research. The discoveries of Copernicus and alchemists from ancient China have proven that government regulations would only slow the evolvement of science and societal progression.
Thanks for your help! And feel free to let me what you would like to give me out of 10.
Governments should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendation would or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape your position.
Body:
The nature of scientific research can be concluded as enigmatic and unpredictable. If a Government wants science to prosper, it has to let loose its control to make all possibilities happen. By tightening its control, it can severely hamper the overall progress of science without realizing it. Although some people still argue that government restrictions are necessary, uncovering the evidence from history would prove them wrong.
The people who support government restrictions ignore the fact that government is not all mighty. Officials on the top may not know much better than the ordinaries, not to mention the science and technology in a specific field. When Frank Whittle, a RAF officer first proposed his plan of a turbo engine to the British Air Force, he was told that his idea was infeasible. He then had to raise funds and conduct the test on his own. Realizing its initial success, the RAF then stepped in to sponsor the program. This is a clear proof that the departments on top may not be aware of the next coming breakthrough, and should therefore put no restrictions on those who want to give their ideas a chance.
History provides many examples on how science would prosper if there were no government restrictions. For a long time, due to the strict control of the Catholic Church, people were told to believe that the sun orbits around the earth. Only the scientific research supporting the Catholic principles were allowed, and the others that serve the opposite purpose were under close restrictions. A scientist born in Poland named Copernicus, however, through his observations had realized that it should be the earth that orbits around the sun, not the vice versa. Even though it could have been a major discovery, the restrictions forbade him to publish his ideas until his death. His theory was then supported by discoveries made by other scientists like Galileo under immense pressure from the Church. If there was not a strict control of the Church over science, the people’s knowledge of astronomy would have undoubtedly developed more rapidly.
Besides the discovery of Copernicus, the discovery of gun powder is another example of triumph of science over government restriction. In ancient China, the practice of alchemy had prevailed, but then restricted. The government viewed alchemy as sheer nonsense and did not believe if it would generate any favorable results. Some, however, persisted with their practice and conducted them secretly. One time during an experiment, the “lab” exploded, which soon arose people’s awareness. The alchemy test was undoubtedly a failure, but the unforeseen result was just what the government would have dreamed of: a more devastating weapon. Had everyone obeyed the government restriction, gun powder, which made so much societal changes would come into existence much later.
In conclusion, it is clear that governments should not put restrictions on science research. The discoveries of Copernicus and alchemists from ancient China have proven that government regulations would only slow the evolvement of science and societal progression.
Thanks for your help! And feel free to let me what you would like to give me out of 10.
