69. "Government should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development"
I agree with the speaker's statement that scientific research should, and would be better off when left freestanding. But there are desperate times when national needs override the independency nature of the researching crusade.
First of all, my contention with the speaker is largely derived from numerous case study. Shining names of those giant scientists and inventors are seldom honored and remembered as government's stooge. They are, more often than not, regular individuals with a keen interest and impressive gift, or working men simply driven by what the their job calls for. For example, the Wright brothers, two young men from Hitty Hawk, Ohio, endeared themselves to the world with their genius invention of the first glider. With pitch, roll and yaw-three simple yet brilliant controls - they conquered the world below them. So it may seem a little incongruous that the brothers were just two humble bicycle mechanics, compared with their shiny achievement. Here, it is their interest in flying birds, other than any outer influence that plays a history-altering roll in the aerospace business. Another apt example would be Ali Whitney, as a common worker, he demonstrates cotton gin, one of the most important inventions in the American history. The motivation for him to devise the machine is the predicament which his badly understaffed plantation was going through. None of the aforementioned names became well known for governmental factors.
Also, another overwhelming reason for my point lies in the common sense that scientific research and development happens to be a course which depends largely and closely on forrunner's achievements. It is a gradual and natural process in which human knowledge accumulates throughout time and history. Today, there is little possibility to find a person who has not been affected by Thomas Edison, for the talented scientist invented the electric bulb which illuminated the whole world down to present. We should not, however, give credits entirely to Edison alone for the accomplishment, because long before his contribution, there were bulbs existing already. Only not as practical as his. It's safe to say that If it were not for those predecessors' discovery and improvement, humanity may well be waiting for a longer time to enjoy economical and safe electricity. One( and even Edison) could hardly develop a comprehensive grasp of the electric technology field in his lifetime. Mandatory orders "requiring" the researcher to devise a notion and carry it right away into fruition would simply be ridiculous and impractical.
Having said that, the government does retain the power and right to interfere scientific research, as long as it has good grounds for the enforcement. National security, societal stability, to name a few, are all justifiable reasons for them to doing so. One need not to look further into the history, just half a century ago, the second world war was teem with such examples. The British government ordered its top scientists to work on national defense-related discipilines, and not long after that, radar was invented to protect the British from German Luftwaffe. The US government jump-started the Manhattan Project, which gave birth to two bombs code-named Fat Man and Little Boy; they are the first glimpse of nuclear weapon witnessed by the whole world.
Moreover, it is also advisable for the government to place detailed yokels on certain fields which scientists are not encouraged to delve into. Take the hot issue surrogacy for instance, there are regulations and strictures on both the doctor and the client. As a biomedical scientific advancement, surrogacy itself represents the victory of human knowledge over infertility. As a social topic, nevertheless, it remains controversial. Because during the process of waiting for the surrogate mother to carry to full term, infertile couples could undergo not only anxiety and strenuous legal problems, but also the moral interrogation of "buying a child". The same is true with clone technology. Stirring up such emotions and debates serves no good to societal stability, rather, it may generate a pandemic hysteria. Thus, scientific research turns out to serve a counterproductive purpose to our humanity.
In general, scientific research and development is by nature free; it could not and should not be fettered by government's will. But when problems which apparently the central government is able to deal with cries out for solution, it is justifiable for the leaders to impose caveats and restrictions on certain domain, so long as they are doing it for the public good.
I agree with the speaker's statement that scientific research should, and would be better off when left freestanding. But there are desperate times when national needs override the independency nature of the researching crusade.
First of all, my contention with the speaker is largely derived from numerous case study. Shining names of those giant scientists and inventors are seldom honored and remembered as government's stooge. They are, more often than not, regular individuals with a keen interest and impressive gift, or working men simply driven by what the their job calls for. For example, the Wright brothers, two young men from Hitty Hawk, Ohio, endeared themselves to the world with their genius invention of the first glider. With pitch, roll and yaw-three simple yet brilliant controls - they conquered the world below them. So it may seem a little incongruous that the brothers were just two humble bicycle mechanics, compared with their shiny achievement. Here, it is their interest in flying birds, other than any outer influence that plays a history-altering roll in the aerospace business. Another apt example would be Ali Whitney, as a common worker, he demonstrates cotton gin, one of the most important inventions in the American history. The motivation for him to devise the machine is the predicament which his badly understaffed plantation was going through. None of the aforementioned names became well known for governmental factors.
Also, another overwhelming reason for my point lies in the common sense that scientific research and development happens to be a course which depends largely and closely on forrunner's achievements. It is a gradual and natural process in which human knowledge accumulates throughout time and history. Today, there is little possibility to find a person who has not been affected by Thomas Edison, for the talented scientist invented the electric bulb which illuminated the whole world down to present. We should not, however, give credits entirely to Edison alone for the accomplishment, because long before his contribution, there were bulbs existing already. Only not as practical as his. It's safe to say that If it were not for those predecessors' discovery and improvement, humanity may well be waiting for a longer time to enjoy economical and safe electricity. One( and even Edison) could hardly develop a comprehensive grasp of the electric technology field in his lifetime. Mandatory orders "requiring" the researcher to devise a notion and carry it right away into fruition would simply be ridiculous and impractical.
Having said that, the government does retain the power and right to interfere scientific research, as long as it has good grounds for the enforcement. National security, societal stability, to name a few, are all justifiable reasons for them to doing so. One need not to look further into the history, just half a century ago, the second world war was teem with such examples. The British government ordered its top scientists to work on national defense-related discipilines, and not long after that, radar was invented to protect the British from German Luftwaffe. The US government jump-started the Manhattan Project, which gave birth to two bombs code-named Fat Man and Little Boy; they are the first glimpse of nuclear weapon witnessed by the whole world.
Moreover, it is also advisable for the government to place detailed yokels on certain fields which scientists are not encouraged to delve into. Take the hot issue surrogacy for instance, there are regulations and strictures on both the doctor and the client. As a biomedical scientific advancement, surrogacy itself represents the victory of human knowledge over infertility. As a social topic, nevertheless, it remains controversial. Because during the process of waiting for the surrogate mother to carry to full term, infertile couples could undergo not only anxiety and strenuous legal problems, but also the moral interrogation of "buying a child". The same is true with clone technology. Stirring up such emotions and debates serves no good to societal stability, rather, it may generate a pandemic hysteria. Thus, scientific research turns out to serve a counterproductive purpose to our humanity.
In general, scientific research and development is by nature free; it could not and should not be fettered by government's will. But when problems which apparently the central government is able to deal with cries out for solution, it is justifiable for the leaders to impose caveats and restrictions on certain domain, so long as they are doing it for the public good.
