Thank you for the continued reviews. Would you mind grading the below essay? Not sure where I fall in the range of 0-6 at the moment.
Governments should place few, if any, restrictions on scientific research and development.
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.
Response:
While some level of government involvement in the scientific research process is necessary if done in the spirit of protecting its population, a regulatory body with too much power would skew the natural flow of funds towards research projects which the majority of a nation deems important and stifle the type of innovation which could lead to landmark scientific breakthroughs.
Federal approval agencies such as the FDA play an extremely important role in ensuring that new drugs and vaccines are not harmful if consumed by a broad base of US consumers. Without such agencies, the incentive for a private company to disclose unwanted side-effects and provide adequate testing before a drug can bring in revenue would be limited. Having a non-profit maximizing regulatory body in place, provides a vital check for a drug company that is largely concerned with generating sales.
If taken too far, however, government involvement can actually hinder the type of privately funded research that a subset of the population may deem important. Furthermore, such restrictions could arguably be preventing key scientific advancements that could save countless lives. For example, restricting funds or the progression of research in controversial areas such as human cloning, may actually be preventing the replication of a healthy organs for those in need of life-saving transplants.
Often, the rationale behind such restrictions blur the line between a separation of church and state, a principle that most developed world governments view as a necessity for true democratic states. Disapproving of certain research on “moralistic†grounds is not a sufficient reason for a government which seeks to remain unbiased in the face of an underlying populace with a diverse set of religious beliefs. Indeed, the only viable reason for government oversight would be the prevention of undue harm towards its citizens and not an archaic “creationist†notion of human life.
The main role of government is to serve its people. While clearly a democratic notion, this principle is one that most developed nations adhere to. Its implications for a government’s role in scientific advancement may be case-specific, but if applied broadly, would effectively limit involvement to regulation which solely exists to protect its citizens from undue harm.
GRE Forum Archive