Scientific research should be carried out and controlled by the governments rather than private companies. Do you agree or disagree?
239 views
0 votes
0 votes
Some believe that the governments should control the carrying out of scientific projects, while others argue private firms would be more capable of that. I totally agree that the interference of government is of benefit because it will have a profound impact on the success and usefulness of projects.
 
 
On the one hand, the governments have power and finance enough to conduct the experiments successfully. Firstly, many kinds of research require cooperation and collaboration by the authorities, so companies and organisations can not control them.
For example, the research about global warming acquires the coordination between developed and developing countries, and then they could handle the environmental problems by themself. The act of companies is not enough to fully tackle this issue. Secondly, the governments are able to provide enormous financial assistance to various research projects. If research fails to achieve objectives, the authority has the resources to compensate for losses. 
 
On the other hand, the only motive of the government is to ensure public welfare, while profit is the companies' priority. As a result, projects conducted by organisations often suffer suspicion from the public, and they could withdraw if the company's finance can not meet the demand for purchasing all the fees. As an example, pharmacy companies usually advertise their drugs which can maximise their profit and fame, despite the quality of the products. Moreover, without the government's control, some companies could carry out illegal research such as nuclear weapons or unethical human experimentation, which pose a serious threat to people and society. 
 
In conclusion, I agree with the statement that scientific projects should be put under governments' control to ensure their accuracy, efficiency and applicability.
by
10 points

Please log in or register to answer this question.

1 Answer

0 votes
0 votes
Some believe that the governments should control the carrying out of scientific projects, while others argue that private firms would be more capable of that. I agree that the interference of government is of benefit because it will have a profound impact on the success and usefulness of projects.
 
 
On the one hand, the governments have power and finance enough => have sufficient power and finance to conduct the experiments successfully. Firstly, many kinds of research require cooperation and collaboration by the authorities, so companies and organisations can not control them.
For example, the research about global warming acquires the coordination between developed and developing countries, and then they could handle the environmental problems by themself. The act of companies is not enough to fully tackle this issue. Secondly, the governments can provide enormous financial assistance to various research projects. If research fails to achieve objectives, the authority has the resources to compensate for losses. 
 
On the other hand, the only motive of the government is to ensure public welfare, while profit is the companies' priority. As a result, projects conducted by organisations often suffer suspicion from the public, and they could withdraw if the company's finance can not meet the demand for purchasing all the fees. For example, pharmacy companies usually advertise their drugs to maximise their profit and fame, despite the quality of the products. Moreover, without the government's control, some companies could carry out illegal research such as nuclear weapons or unethical human experimentation, which severely threaten people and society. 
 
In conclusion, I agree with the statement that scientific projects should be put under governments' control to ensure their accuracy, efficiency and applicability.
by
102 points

1 comment

Thank you so much.

Related questions