در صورتی که اشکالی در ترجمه می بینید می توانید از طریق شماره زیر در واتساپ نظرات خود را برای ما بفرستید
09331464034
Topic:
Governments should not fund any scientific research whose consequences are unclear.
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.
دولت ها نبايد بودجه حمایتی برای هرگونه تحقيقات علمي كه نتايج آن نامشخص است تأمين كنند.
پاسخی بنویسید که در آن درمورد موافقت یا مخالفت با این جمله بحث کنید و استدلال خود را درباره موضع گیری خود توضیح دهید. در توسعه و حمایت از موضع خود، باید شرایط خاصی را توضیح دهید که در آن، پذیرفتن این توصیه ممکن است مفید باشد یا نباشد و توضیح دهید که این مثال ها چگونه موضع شما را شکل می دهند.
موافق
- دولت ها باید بودجه کشور را اولویت بندی کنند و اول به مسائل مهم تری مثل بیکاری و ایجاد شغل برای جوانان یا مسائل ضروری دیگر بودجه کافی تخصیص بدهند و اگر بودجه‌ای باقی ماند سپس می توانند روی تحقیقات علمی که نتیجه مشخصی ندارد، سرمایه‌گذاری کنند.
مخالف
- تحقیقات علمی در دو حالت نتیجه می رسند: یانتیجه آن ها در کوتاه مدت مشخص می‌شود و یا در بلندمدت. بنابراین دولت ها باید روی تحقیقات علمی سرمایه‌گذاری کنند چون نتایج آن می‌تواند حتی در بلندمدت برای نسل آینده مفید واقع شود.
- بسیاری از تحقیقات علمی هستند که نتایج آن در حال حاضر نامشخص است اما باید این تحقیقات به طور مداوم انجام شوند تا در آینده به نتیجه برسند. به عنوان مثال در زمینه ستاره شناسی، کشفیات انجام گرفته بسیار مبهم و نامشخص است اما نتایج این تحقیقات در بلندمدت برای ما اهمیت دارد.
- بدون تامین بودجه توسط دولت هیچ کدام از دانشمندان نمی‌توانستند به نتایجی که تاکنون رسیده‌اند، دست یابند. به عنوان مثال زمانی که بسیاری از دانشمندان برای کشف واکسن یک ویروس شروع به انجام تحقیقات می کنند، نتایج آن کاملاً نامشخص است و شاید سالها طول بکشد تا بتوانند واکسن مورد نظر را کشف کنند اما دولت نباید مانع این تحقیقات شود بلکه باید بودجه کافی برای آن را تامین کند.
- در حال حاضر بیلیون ها دلار صرف بسیاری از تحقیقات علمی می‌شود که ما حتی در اصل آن نیز شک داریم. به عنوان مثال ناسا تحقیقاتی را انجام می‌دهد تا بالاخره به این نتیجه برسد که آیا موجودات فضایی واقعا وجود دارند یا خیر . دلیلی ندارد که دولت ها بخواهند جلوی چنین تحقیقاتی را بگیرند و یا بودجه مالی آن را تامین نکنند چون به هر حال در آینده باید به این سوال پاسخ داده شود و زمینه پاسخ دادن به بسیاری از سوالات علمی با سرمایه‌گذاری در زمان حال انجام می‌پذیرد.
- وظیفه اصلی دولت، رشد و پیشرفت جامعه ای است که در آن حکومت می کند و لازمه رشد و پیشرفت هر کشوری سرمایه‌گذاری روی تحقیقات علمی آن است. زمانی که دانشمندان شروع به یک تحقیق علمی می کنند به طور قطع نمی دانند که آن تحقیق نتیجه‌ای در بر خواهد داشت یا با شکست مواجه می‌شود. اما دولت موظف است که به هر حال برای رسیدن نتیجه از پروژه های علمی حمایت مالی کند تا رشد و پیشرفت کشور تضمین شود.
Strategies
A good starting point is to break down the statement and identify the assumptions it makes. Look for ambiguous phrasing and consider all possible exceptions – they represent weak points that you can defend or attack depending on your chosen position.
Statement breakdown:
a) Governments – is it their responsibility?
b) Should not fund – officially or unofficially? How big of a deterrent is it? What about company and private funding?
c) Any scientific research – how about other fields that have dangerous consequences?
d) Consequences are unclear – some research applications can’t be foreseen; what if the consequences are bad, but clear? How about ‘good research’ put to bad use?
Assumptions:
a) Governments are responsible for overseeing the consequences of scientific research
b) Government funding should stay clear of controversial research
c) Not having government funding would hinder scientific endeavors
d) Scientific research should have foreseeable consequences
e) Scientific research will always be used for intended purposes
f) Scientific research without foreseeable consequences is bad
Pros and Cons:
Pros
a) Government resources are not infinite, money should be spent wisely
b) Scientists can produce dangerous things
c) Research can fall into the wrong hands
d) It is easier to weigh the benefits risk ratio if you know the consequences of research
e) Will make researchers focus on clear and definable goals
Cons
a) Does not stop potentially dangerous research before it stops (just does not fund it)
b) Can be used as a publicity stunt (keep their name in the clear, while allowing the research to continue)
c) Restricted to official, public channels
d) Not all technological applications can be foreseen (can be used for something other than the intended purpose)
e) Some research can be used both for good and for bad – nuclear power, vaccines
f) Some fields of inquiry don’t start from hypothesis but from observations
g) Some research can produce accidental inventions
Examples:
a) Past and present controversial research
b) Inventions that started out as something else
c) Movies and books about the dangers or benefits of research
d) Countries that have similar policies in place
e) Percentage of research funds obtained from government funding as opposed to corporate or private funding
Sample 1:
Cutting edge scientific research can often be controversial, especially when funded by entities that stand to gain from its success. The government is one such entity, in that it funds a plurality of US research for its own gain. To this effect, it is widely believed by some that governments should not support scientific research that does not have clear goals. However, not funding potentially dangerous research only serves to keep the government name in the clear so that the politicians in charge can continue to enjoy the population’s support. In fact, most current research is sponsored through private or corporate donations. According to OECD (the Organization for Economic Co–operation and Development), two thirds of the funds for scientific research come from industry donations, 20 % comes from universities and only about 10% comes from the government. In this case, not funding a certain scientific inquiry is more of a statement – taking a position – than any deterrent for the research.
Then there is the question of whether or not the research endeavor in question receives government funding through unofficial channels. Just because the government claims to not be associated with some type of research does not necessarily make it true. In fact, the US government has a history of revealing previous involvement in human experimentation, which at the time was kept secret for fear of public reprisals. One example of this occurred during the Cold War, when the US was involved in testing out torture and interrogation techniques, or like in the case of the Holmesburg Prison, conducting chemical experiments with dioxin on the prisoners.
Furthermore, not all technological applications can be foreseen – as is often the case, inventions end up being used for something other than their intended purpose. The popular breath freshener, Listerine, started out as an antiseptic, to be used by doctors. Coca–Cola started as a cure for morphine addiction and Play–Doh as wallpaper cleaner. We live in a complex world that is difficult to predict – at the time it was created, nobody could have foreseen the world changing impact of DARPA that later became known as the internet. As such, history shows us that it is difficult to predict with any level of significant accuracy the potential uses and consequences of any given technology.
Even if the consequences of the research are known, that does not guaranty that they will be used for the intended purpose – the Russians stole the US research about the nuclear bomb (even when it was under strict security). In fact, matters are even further complicated by the fact that some scientific innovations occur by accident – like the discovery of penicillin, where not only the consequences, but the intended purpose and design of the research was focused on a completely different aspect. The same can be said for fields of study that start with observations and experiments, and through analysis after the fact construct working models or concepts of the world. Take astrophysics – and the research into dark matter – it is hard to anticipate what would be found, let alone how that information would influence the rest of the world, especially since we are talking about something that is not likely to have any physical consequences.
Ultimately, if it is a question of scientific research being harmful, then wouldn’t it be better to create regulations to stop the research from being performed, or at least set up regulations to make sure that safety procedures are in place?
نظرات کاربران
هنوز نظری درج نشده است!
