ESSAYJUDGE


Free Essay Reviews

EssayJudge.com is a free education resource for students who want help writing college essays.

SIGN UP to post your essay and get expert feedback from a professor.



Recent Essays

February 17

December 10

August 16

August 16

August 16

August 16

August 16

August 16

August 16

August 16
Post your essay. Get expert feedback. For free.
We're trying to help students improve their writing the hard way. Do you know students who want critical essay reviews from a professor of English Literature? Click like to share. Click here to sign up and post your own essay. We offer no paid services. All reviews are completely free.
Scientists And Other Researchers Should Focus Their Research On Areas That Are Likely To Benefit The Greatest Number Of People.



Prompt:

Scientists and other researchers should focus their research on areas that are likely to benefit the greatest number of people.

Writea 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.





The statement is reasonable to some extent. For people all around the world are threatened by some unresolved problems, thus we should make the best use of limited resources to support the researches on these problems. However, if we follow this suggestion, we thus ignore the long-term significance of those arguably "unimportant or useless" researches, which is detrimental to the long-term development of science. What is worse, the statement is against ethical equality. Thus, I can not fully agree with the speaker.



To begin with, I would like to illustrate the necessity of devoting more researches on areas that are likely to benefit the greatest number of people. As we all know, there are some unresolved serious problems threatening people locally or all around the world. For example, we have no cure to AIDS, most cancers, malaria, and congenital heart disease (CDH). Thus the medical scientists should undertake the responsibility of removing these fatal diseases for people as early as they can. Or many people are suffering from lack of access to clean water and sufficient food, thus the agricultural researchers and researchers in other related fields should focus more on the technologies of cleaning dirty water and increasing the production of crops. Moreover, the government is suggested to assess the research topics and divide them into several classes with different priority of being funded according to the short-term significance. This is quite reasonable, because we have limited financial and other resources, thus researches that could bring welfare to the greatest number of people should get sufficiently funded; otherwise, the researches in these field would be deterred due to the lack of funds.



However, paying more attention to the areas that would influence the greatest number of people does not amount to abandoning the arguably "unimportant" or "useless" researches. In fact, the mere focus on some urgent areas and the ignorance of researches of no clear result are both detrimental, for the following several compelling reasons.



In the first place, there is no need calling for all the scientists and researchers to focus their research on areas that are likely to benefit the greatest number of people. Although it may accelerate the resolve of the hard problems, the solution is of low efficiency for the work of most scientists overlaps each other. Is there any significance for the government funds so many scientists to do the same work?



In the second place, there are long-term merits of those arguably "unimportant" or "useless" researches. For one thing, research itself is unpredictable to a large extent, especially the pioneering ones. Just as the master Albert Einstein once said, "If we knew what it was what we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?". Einstein itself devote all his life on the pioneering researches that did not bring immediate welfare to the world, but his theory of Relativity influenced the whole exploration of space and unclear energy exploit several years after it was created. Similarly, the physicist Richard Feynman, who devoted himself to the mathematical modeling of the subatomic particles, is also a good example to illustrate the great influence of a seemingly meaningless research. Although brought nothing to people at that moment and even was teased as trash, turned out to be the foundation of modern physics. And more profoundly, his concepts conceive the next generation computer in the future.



Furthermore, when we follow this statement, we tend to ignore the research on the problems that affect a relative small number of people, and we will implement no research on the problems of animals. However, this is ethically unjustifiable. In fact, the world should research on the diseases that maybe influence no more than 1000 people all around the world. These researches are both academically worthy but morally justifiably.



As the last point, the government should respect the interest and free will of the scientists and researchers. Most researchers, if not all, value the free will and like to research on things they are really interest in. Although the researches are not necessarily related to the problems that threat huge amount of people, the scientists could make discoveries from them in high spirit. It is reasonable that the government should encourage them to choose the research topics that will improve the welfare of most people, but the government should never force them to do that. Otherwise, they will become discontent and feel depressed, and are to likely achieve nothing in those researches.



To sum up, the statement has merits, but considering its low efficiency, and the long term contribution of the arguably "unimportant" researches, and also the probability of going against many scientists' interest when following this instruction, I tend to disagree with it. But the government should encourage, but not force, the scientists to solve the problems that will enhance the welfare of most people, and the scientists have the responsibility to do that.


Submitted by: zhangyang
Tagged...



Comments
Naveedjaved33
+8

It has good examples with effective connecting words, but it lacks depth and not very well organized...
December,12 2012

Rate Comment:
The Truth
+2

It was OK i have seen better. The truth rates you a 5/10 because you weren't very imaginative in your writing. But yes there were som nice examples.
October,20 2012

Rate Comment:
Worshipthesquid
+1

I would say that your last point is a little weak. Researchers are usually told what to research: it's their job. Free will and choice doesn't really come into it - the choice of what to research belongs to the organisation paying for the research.

In addition, the third-last paragraph (beginning with 'Furthermore') needs a little more explanation to illustrate your point. Why is it ethically unjustifiable? - In a perfect world of course uncommon problems would be researched just as much as common problems, but is it right to use resources researching problems that affect few people when they could be used elsewhere and help far more people? What do you mean by 'academically worthy'?

There are quite a few minor grammar and spelling mistakes - for example, in the fourth paragraph 'Einstein itself devote all his life' should presumably be 'Einstein himself devoted all his life' and 'morally justifiably' should be 'morally justifiable'. Your vocabulary, however, is excellent.

Just spending a little time going over this essay and thinking through the points again would help a lot with the logical flaws and spelling mistakes. You have the makings of a really good essay here - it just needs a little more thought!

March,01 2013

Rate Comment:
Essay123lalala
+1

State a thesis in the last sentence of the beginning paragraph, instead of later in the essay. The word "thus" is overused.

BEGINNING PARAGRAPH: "For people" take out "For" -OR- leave "For" and take out "thus". "Long term" is used twice in the same sentence, use it only once. Instead of saying "What is worse, the statement is against ethical equality. Thus, I can not fully agree with the speaker." Make it 1 sentence "Especially because the statement is against ethical equality, I cannot fully agree with the speaker." then end with a thesis, "The reason why I cannot fully agree with the speaker is for the following reasons: it is against ethical equality; it ignores the significance of "unimportant" researches who are detrimental to the long-term development of science;

1ST PARAGRAPH: "the world. For example" change to "the world, such as AIDS, malaria, most cancers, and CDH of which we have no cure to." On the 1st sentence you said "researches" plural research isn't researches, it's "research". "Thus the medical" take out "Thus". "Or many people" take out "Or". "food, thus" change "thus" to "hence". "researchers and researchers" should change to "research". "with different" change to "with a different". comma after funded. Change "financial" to "finances". "thus researches" to "therefore research" "number of people" should change to "population". "funded;" change to "funded,". "researches" to "research". make field plural (fields).

2ND PARAGRAPH: change "paying more attention" to "being more attentive". change "areas" to "study". change "the greatest number of people" to "more people". change all "researches" to "research". "of no clear" should be "with no clear". "for the following reasons" change to "for the consequential explanations".
I'm not finished yet but I don't have time right now but I'll finish up. Hope this helped! I loved your organization and thoughts about the essay! :)
April,15 2013

Rate Comment:
Deepak Kalra
+1

Gr888 buddyy...nice xamples...
September,30 2012

Rate Comment:
Silent_monkey
+1

Thx a lot bro..................
November,17 2012

Rate Comment:
SquashEliza
+1

Squash! Squash! Squash! Squash! Squash! Squash! Squash! Squash! Squash! Squash! Squash! Squash! Squash! Squash! Squash! Squash! Squash! Squash! Squash! Squash! Squash! Squash! Squash! Squash! Squash! Squash! Squash!
October,31 2012

Rate Comment:
Log In to post a comment.