Research paper on scientific research

I dont know what to make the title yet.
The prompt was to write about anything related to America. My teacher approved my topic.
I deleted the entire background info/hypothetical thesis sort of intro that went along with this.
I will however, include it in brackets for you to read over. I am not sure if I should still try to use it or not in the final draft.

This was supposed to be much more extensive, but became too much of a burden to continue working on, so I shortened it drastically. Originally, another main topic, followed by 3 subtopics, along with a final wrap up paragraph relating the entire essay to the thesis presented in the opening (which is now deleted, but included in brackets), and conclusion, were all going to be included. Now however, I have no conclusion, and have not included the other main topic, or it's 3 subtopics. Unfortunately, that topic happens to be the one I am most knowledgeable about. It was going to be focused on drug research, and pharmaceutical control of government drug policies.

[The United States of America is surely the "land of the free and home of the brave", but nowhere does it say that America is free of the omniscient presence of the grips of corruption. Sweltering beneath all the patriotism lays an ever-growing entity, which stands in the way of the long gone foundational American spirit of Progress. No longer is the Darwinian drive, to beat natural selection, embedded in the hearts of the once "American Dreamers". Unfortunately, the reality of the situation is much darker than most would be content in accepting. A simple skimming of the controversial and highly debated waters, of governmental involvement in the scientific field, will lead to inconclusive circularized logic on behalf of the upper hand; those in power; the government. In the words of the legendary folk musician and civil-rights activist, Bob Dylan, "You're gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed [sic]", and this famous line holds true for even the government. Their service is however, quite often not to the American People, but to those who hold the wealth of corporate empires in their back pockets, yes, to those who are the cause of corruption and ultimately the cause of devolution due to the blind tribute and unrevoked acceptance of wrong doing that is expected of the People of America.

Policies and interventionist strategies of American politics within the fields of science, medicine, research, et cetera . . . are unsupportive of the growth and advancement of the nation, well being of citizens, and do not reflect what the voting peoples of America need or want. The interference of government is spread throughout the scientific world and can be seen in the heavy limitations in research and experimentation. This is an issue that should be resolved and is not only a moral and ethical one, but also, it is simply an obstacle in the way of progress.

Progress is a goal that is necessary for growth. That being said, science is reasonably considered to be a large foundation for this growth/progress, but due to the incredibly strict limitations that have been placed on the progress of science, many studies, that likely could have been tremendously beneficial, have come to a screeching halt. Of those affected by government impedance, stem cell and cloning research, and drug research would fall very near the top of the list of what has become the most underfunded, restricted, and discontinued areas of what ideally could be very progressive areas of study and could quite possibly lead to further developments and advancements in current knowledge and applications of said subjects which suffer government neglect.

In the case of stem cells and cloning, the government has done little to help the current scientific ventures into the depths of the subjects expand, and in hopes of long term goals held by scientists, eventually become applicable for medical uses to help people and hopefully find groundbreaking possibilities to eliminate previous life-threatening ailments. It is important to understand what stem cells are in order to grasp the later dangers of government obstructions. Stem cells are human cells that essentially have not been "specialized", meaning; they are not a specific type of cell, such as a skin cell, or brain cell, and have potential to divide and become a "specialized" cell with a specific function. (Ham; NIH, Stem Cells Basics) The benefit to this is that the cell then has the potential to be used in treatments for fatal diseases.

Some of the more notable diseases that stem cells are though to cure are: Alzheimer's, diabetes, and heart disease, among many others. (Goldstein; Ham; NIH) The source for these stem cells would be from that of a three to five day old human embryo. The embryo is "composed of 50-100 cells, and which has no heart, no blood, no brain and no human features other than a human genome." (Goldstein) The oppositional argument in this case, is committed to ban research and development with human embryos because it considers them to be required by law to be recognized as an adult entity. Clearly there is a difference between a cluster of cells and a living human. So why then, has the government been so hard pressed on banning such research? Bill Saunders states that, "If therapeutic cloning research were as promising as some claim, the stock market would be pouring tons of money into biotech companies pursuing this technology. But in fact, very few companies are funding this type of research." Could the fact that companies are not interested in research, that yields no immediate monetary potential, be the reason? Stem cell research is said to be morally acceptable by 54% of those questioned, according to survey. (Pub. Op.) If the government were acting on what the people wanted, then a ban on stem cell research would not exist. Similarly, there are issues within drug research that are related to government interferences.

Drug research is an important area of study because simply because it is what determines if medicines are safe for human consumption. One of the issues that affect this however, is the inability to conduct research on primates. The opposing viewpoint on the matter is that it is abusive to animal rights. However, protecting the safety of humans should be a primary concern. Animals such as rats, which are permitted to be used in research and testing, are not a completely accurate model of a human, and do not demonstrate the way in which humans would be expected to react to certain chemicals. "For years research on Parkinson's disease has been limited by the lack of an animal model on which to test new drugs and treatments," which is in part due to the fact that rats were the subjects being used in testing.

A noteworthy case of where this has been problematic is in the case of the MPTP outbreaks in the 1980's. (Perry) MPTP is a contaminant that is found in MPPP, which is a synthetic chemical that is often called "synthetic heroin". (Man) The "MPTP outbreaks" were a series of events, which occurred in the 1980's, where a rapid growing number of people were developing a mysterious case of Parkinson's syndrome after ingesting what they believed to be heroin. (Man) Scientists were baffled as to what could possibly be causing these Parkinson symptoms amongst heroin abusers scattered across the country. Eventually, samples of what the victims had believed to be heroin were discovered. Scientists determined the samples to be not heroin, but MPTP. In their testing of MPTP on rats, they were unable to find a link between the Parkinson symptoms and the use of MPTP because the rats had little to no lasting effects after use.

Not until years later, when MPTP effects were studied in African monkeys, did it become established that MPTP caused Parkinson's disease. The reason being, that MPTP breaks down into toxic chemical when put into the human blood stream, this does not occur in rats, and therefore, the rats suffered none of the effects that humans had. (Man; Perry) According to Prof. Lawrence Corey, in order decide whether a vaccine or medication is safe and useful in fighting disease, "prudent use of animal resources is a necessary part of the process of medical research to improve human and animal health." (Corey) It is necessary for the government to recognize the degree of necessity that is present within the scientific field for the use of animal testing. If the government, or their agencies, such as the FDA, refuses to grant permission for testing on primates, then many studies could remain inconclusive, similar to the MPTP case until it was later granted permission.

Thank you.

For what class is this paper? You go from talking about corruption and quoting Bob Dylan to arguing for vivisection of primates. Furthermore, your facts are wrong. Unfortunately, the United States does not ban testing on primates. Each year, between the U.S. and the E.U. (where regulations are more, not less, strict than in the U.S.), some 70,000 of our fellow primates are subjected to often very painful procedures to which they have not consented. In general, U.S. regulations concerning the misuse of animals in research favor the purveyors of animals for testing and the scientists who make money by abusing them. The U.S. lags far behind (in my view -- in your view this would put the U.S. ahead) the E.U. in regulating vivisection. If you want to critique the U.S. for being hostile to science, there are plenty of reasons to do so. Undue protection of primates certainly isn't one of them.

I agree. I really couldn't find info that I was looking for primarily. The animal testing was just random filler text to make it appear as if the essay had any merit. I really think animal testing regulations are fine at the current state of time. But I had nothing to talk about, so I decided on throwing it in there just to make this flimsy essay look like it has some sort of meaning. In reality, the essay is an utter disaster, and I gave up on my original concept because I realized the difficulty of it would be too much of an undertaking to complete.

"If you want to critique the U.S. for being hostile to science, there are plenty of reasons to do so."

Could you give some examples? I have searched through database after database after database, and newspaper, and interview, and blog, and w/e . . I haven't been able to find much that would have been clearly substantial enough.

I am really stuck on this. =/

- Oh by the way, this is for a history class. But please don't take concern to that. The context for this is really just random. My teacher said "Choose anything you like as long as it somehow can be tied to America."

And now you have learned the hazards of throwing filler into essays! It tends to make matters worse rather than better.


As with 12 step programs, admitting that the essay is a disaster is the first step.

But, please tell us: What was your original concept? Maybe there's a way to make that workable rather than start from scratch.


During the Bush administration, scientists of all sorts at federal agencies were prohibited from releasing findings that contradicted what the administration wished were true. Some were prohibited from speaking to the public. One of the top climate scientists at NASA has spoken out about this, as have several other lower-level scientists.

All over the United States, science education is under assault from those who fear any science content that in any way demonstrates or flows from the fact of evolution. In many school districts students are taught Creationism -- oops, "intelligent design" -- alongside evolution in science classrooms in public schools. As a result, a pitifully small percentage of U.S. citizens accept evolution as fact.

Scientific illiteracy among the citizenry of a democracy in the era of technology = uninformed and ill-advised government (in)actions.

Some scientists who want to do stem cell research complain that even Obama's loosening of the regulations on that research still leaves them unable to do the work they believe needs doing.

I read the UK magazine New Scientist regularly, and much of what I am saying here comes from my (admittedly rough) recollection of what I have read there. Many New Scientist articles are online in free full text, so you might want to start there.

Funny that you mention that, I am a recovering meth addict, and I was recently considering getting myself back into an AA program (I prefer AA over NA due to past experiences with 'elitist' addicts within NA)

Anywho . .

The original concept was focused on primarily the impedance of the government in the area of science, and how often times, it can be related to corruption.

I wanted to make a large focus on the drug industry, because that is clearly a huge area of debate, where it is easy to see (in my opinion) that the government is acting on behalf of lobbyist payrolls rather than citizens' health.

-- For example, Methamphetamine is an illegal substance. However, if I get a prescription for Methamphetamine, it suddenly is no longer illegal. Yet, our system tries to portray that A) Illegal Methamphetamine is dangerous, addictive, and life threatening. B) Prescribed Methamphetamine is somehow different than the (cheaper) illegal alternative, and thus it is 'OKAY'.

One notorious claim (in my mind) that our system tries to uphold, is that driving under the influence of stimulants, specifically Methamphetamine, is a highly dangerous activity which often leads to death.

However, Shire (the makers of Adderall, Adderall XR, Vyvanse, and other amphetamine based medications) actually has pamphlets/brochures, advertising that DOUBLE-DOSING is acceptable and may help if the patient will be driving.

Obviously, someone's statement is wrong. In fact, it is that of our government's Anti-Drug Crusade, unsurprisingly. Studies have shown that driving ability is improved, rather than impaired, whilst under the effects of stimulating substances, such as Methamphetamine, Cocaine, Caffeine, etc . .

Thank you very much for your suggestions in New Scientist. I will browse through some articles asap and try at throwing together an essay for in second, hopefully more straightforward and successful, attempt.

Just as a matter of personal opinion, stylistically, and grammatically, did you feel that the essay thus far had much breadth?

If you want to write something that draws together drugs, American history, and government corruption leading to actions inconsistent with science, you can't go wrong with hemp. There's plenty of information out there on that history.

For this paper, or just in general, you might be interested in the book Hep-Cats, Narcs, and Pipe Dreams: A History of America's Romance with Illegal Drugs by Jill Jonnes.

I do recommend that you narrow your focus sharply, whether you focus on hemp or some other clearly bounded topic. The essay thus far had too much "breadth," so much so that it was all over the place. Choose one topic and then go deeply and widely within that. If you chose hemp, for example, this would allow you to talk about the history of the suppression of this sustainable plant, the influence of money on the past and current government regulations, what science says and how this has been ignored, as well as how beneficial it would be environmentally if hemp were in production as a sustainable source of paper, etc.

Your grammar is good, and I suspect that your style will be too if only you focus.

I'm confused. If you wanted to write an essay on how the U.S.'s war on drugs is based on moral panic rather than sound science, why did you not in fact write such an essay? Finding articles in support of it would have been easy. If that is what you are interested in, then try writing on that topic.

I need a scientific english language support to my research paper

Hello,

I want your help in writing my research paper in correct english.i already writing it but it need mor and more revision to be in suitable form to publish in respectable journal . if this service is possible, how can i send my research to you. please answer me about this.

dr. eman

Hello Dr. Eman! We can help to some extent. Simply paste your material here, and one of us will help a little for free. If you need a whole article edited, though, maybe you should look for a paid editing service. Do you want to start by posting part of the article here?