ISSUE 36, 求建议

universeentropy

Government should not fund any scientific research whose consequence are unclear.
第一次动手写，没有在规定时间内写完，还查了词典。我觉得肯定不适用于考试，求建议。

The orientation of the scientific research funding has always been a pivotal issue as is known to all, not only because such an expenditure on funding counts a considerable share in the annual budget which makes it a problem in formulating an appropriate fiscal policy, but also because the scientific research is indeed very crucial to guarantee the future prosperity of the nation for all the influences it imposes upon a variety of fields, of which, by itself, is as distinct to each other as economy is to military.
Since the funding is a problem to be taken seriously, we should think twice before making the final decision. I argue that although the consequence of a research is a significant factor in our evaluation, it cannot be labeled as the only consideration. As is repeatedly shown by the history, many currently influential technology did not seem at all promising until its authentic strength is discovered by humanity.
The very reason which makes humanity distinguished from other creatures lies not only in the intelligence but also in the innovativeness and audacity. It is through the decisive action by human when facing the uncertainty which makes the breakthroughs, the milestones and ushers a new era over and over again in history.
Take the use of fire for instance. The fire did not appear in front of humanity as a gift from god, on the contrary, its initial impression on human is accompanied with fright because it burns some people to be injured or even to death, much the impression that the scene of a bloody killing posed on an innocent child. If the humanity is afraid of the unclear consequence of fire, cowered from the utilization of fire, then it will still be ape today.
Another example which is not that ancient is the black powder. Such a substance comes into playing a role in the human society totally as an accident. By saying this, I mean the black powder is not intentionally invented by human for a specific purpose as is the case of many technological advances nowadays. So it is surely unclear to its accidental inventor at that time regarding its consequence. Yet the black powder became ubiquitous very quickly before the human are very certain about its consequence. Besides, the ramifications of black powder also serve as important roles in the ensuing industrial revolution.
If we focus our attention on the modern times, the examples are rife about the audacious utilization of the results of scientific research. The quantum mechanics, the theory of relativity, the genetic engineer as well as the World Wide Web, none of them seems to have a bright prospect when it is initially put forward. But the history has shown us, as usual, these innovations are indeed the very achievements which give humanity the greatest impetus to progress and deserve our highest pride.
The obscureness of the consequence of a scientific research cannot be a tenable reason for government to stop funding it. Although, as we know, the fire can burn people to death, the black powder can be used in the war for killing, the genetic engineer can bring about ethical problems and the World Wide Web can be used to spy upon other’s privacies; but it is through the contact to instead of the withdrawal from the new technology that we gradually find a way to regulate and make a better use of it.
The practical procedure for government to make a budget plan on the scientific research is not that simple as we might think. Such a procedure incorporates many factors of which the consequence is surely a desired one. But if the human can see every result of every action with extreme accuracy, then the future means nothing but a well-written scenario. The true history never shows that style. So for government, it is necessary to assess the implication of a research before funding it, but when such an assessment brings confusion instead of determinacy, the government, as the leader who bears the responsibility to guide the society, is supposed to say with audacity: why not have a try?

Prof_G

例子可取，段落太分散，每一点的讨论不够，没有明确的1+3结构，每段的中心句不明确，最后两段有严重的跑题嫌疑。总结，即使语言上有亮点，但是对例子分析的不彻底很大程度上破坏了文章的信息传达，再加上跑题，3-3.5分。