ISSUE 59求狠拍求猛拍求往死里拍！！

最沉重的负担

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

Write a response in which you discuss theextent to which you agree or disagree with the recommendation and explain yourreasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting yourposition, describe specific circumstances in which adopting the recommendationwould or would not be advantageous and explain how these examples shape yourposition.

提纲：
科学家应该尽他们的最大所能让他们的研究造福尽可能多的人。
1.     但科学家和科学研究大部分在一开始是很难看出对大部分人的有没有好处的
2.     即使一些研究对小部分人有好处但对人类的发展也起到了跟重要的作用。
不论造福足够多的人与否都应该去研究。
3. 即便有些研究方向能够造福很多人，也不应该让所有的科学家都专注到这一个领域中去。

I agree with the speaker’s broad assertionthat those areas which can benefit the greatest number of people should be thefocus of scientists and researchers. There is no doubt that the fundamental jobof researchers is to do what they can to benefit the world. This is also thecore value of scientists and their work. However it does not mean that thoseareas which seem not beneficial enough should not be regarded as the priorityin the field of science. Whether scientists andother researchers should focus on the areas that benefits to the greatestnumber of people or not is a case-by-case question

Firstly, most of the times, it is hard totell whether the benefits of a scientist’s major is ponderable or not in itsinchoate stage. As we know, Charles K. Kao was awarded half of the 2009 NobelPrize in Physics for his groundbreaking achievements in fiber optics. But thedissertation which brought his work to light was issued in 1966. During thattime, his research was downplayed by the scientists in Bell Lab in America, which forced Kao to travel to Japan where he visitedvarious of people to gain financial support and commercial realization. Thegreat benefit of Kao’s pioneering work was not recognized until 1980s when moreand more communication systems use fiber optics as major materials.

In addition, many researches may not benefit most people,albeit they are beneficial. Such researches should still be carried out nomatter how small the amount of the beneficiaries is. Take the embryonic stemcell as an example. Since it was first independently derived from mouse embryosby Martin Evans and Matthew Kaufman in 1981, myriad of researches andexperiments has been done in around this area. The method of using suchtechnology to generate multiple embryos to help those people with physicaldisabilities has given a rebirth to a spinal cord-injured individual. Nevertheless,people who endured great torment is far less than people who are in good healthwhich does not fit for the speaker’s standard of which scientists should focusin. But it doesn’t mean that we should stop keep going on with such notable medical topics.

Even if a research can do good to the greatest amount ofpeople, it is not a good idea to coerce all scientists to specialize in thatarea. Most scientists do their job for they are interested in it. If they areobliged to do so, many of them may lose what they are particularly expert atand become futile. Generally speaking, masters who have achieved great successin specific areas must be really interested in it. Without such a greatteacher, even the most talented scientists will not be able to unleash theirtalent. A beneficial research does not need all the scientists and researchersto indulge themselves into it, but those who have their expertise in the areashould contribute to it to his or her greatest extent.

In sum, the speaker’s viewpoint is inconvinciblebecause of the reasons above. He did not tell us how to tell whether a projectis beneficial enough for researchers to focus on while neglecting theconsequence of those minority research areas. Scientific research should not bedistinguished in such rules even  some ofthe projects make slight contribution to the process of human revolution, theyare worth to be carried out for the loyalty of science.

普渡哥

写的很好，理由列的很好。

竹林中人

你的第三点，我还是感觉有点偏的，当然也可以接受

最沉重的负担

谢谢普渡哥，有什么可以改进的么？

最沉重的负担

没想出更好的角度，所以就用这个角度论述了。求建议~

竹林中人

我觉得研究不能完全地以这个为标准来衡量是否应该投入。
1.任何研究地目的都是最终以服务人类为目的，有利于人们的研究都可以投入。
2.但科学研究有自身的特点，有些研究很直接针对应用领域，那么这种就应当以满足更多的人为目的。但有些基础性的研究，比如物理数学的理论研究，也许短期很难实现对人类的益处，但因为是基础，是以后其他领域进步的条件，所以必须重视。‘
3.如果一味强调研究以满足更多人的需要为目的，会造成人力和财力资源的浪费，而不利于整个科学研究的发展。比如之前世界各地都疯狂支持太阳能发展，政府投入很多，但实际效果并不好，遇到金融危机之后，整个研究和应用都遇到了很大的困难。

takyra

Fairely good in general.
Clearly structured. Great Charles K. Kao example.
The reasoning for the second to last paragraph is a bit weak though. But point taken .
Gr8 job.

P.S. A petty mistake... I notice that you mention "the amount of people" several times. Please note that "amount" is normally used with uncountable or mass noun. number is used with plural nouns. "eople" is countable. Therefore it should be "the number of people".