Comme des milliers de personnes, recevez gratuitement chaque semaine Essay/freedom of research
Cours gratuits > Forum > Forum anglais: Questions sur l'anglais || En basEssay/freedom of research
Message de rob13 posté le 02-05-2013 à 20:12:22 (S | E | F)
Hello everybody,
I wrote an essay about freedom of research : "Should scientists have complete freedom in their research ?"
Could you tell me what you think about it, I tried to correct some mistakes but I think that some remained.
Have a nice evening.
Here is the part of my essay I'd like you to check and give me your opinion about. Thank you very much :
We could say that a researcher is free when he can carry out any experiment without any obstacle to his approach//rien n'entrave sa démarche//
(ou) We could define freedom in research as the ability to carry out (perform?) any experiment without any obstacle to the approach. However//Nevertheless, freedom in research (mostly freedom) is purely subjective to each one of us. Then, how far can scientists go with their experiments? Should they really have a “complete freedom” ?
A needed freedom (A necessary freedom)
In one hand, scientists should have a certain freedom in their research. Freedom must be an integral part of the scientific process, it allows the researcher to conduct his experiments without discomfort or stress, or even without concealing/hiding/having to hide
his findings and conclusions.
This is thanks to (because of?) this freedom that great discoveries and inventions have been made through(out) history.
A well known example (illustration) of the freedom in research issue would be the condemning of Galileo because of his working on the heliocentrism theory. The church considered his working as an heresy and put pressure on him to make him withdraw his thoughts and admit that he was wrong by threatening him of torture. After what, he has been isolated from the society until his death.
Of course, Galileo should have been free to go on with his research without getting worried by the church. This example clearly shows how freedom in research is important.
Nowadays, we do not especially hear about any lack of freedom in (the) research; this leads us to think/believe that this “natural” freedom they have is sufficient/enough to them. Nevertheless, some experiments raised some issues about how far can scientists go in their research.
A freedom... with rules.
In an other hand scientists should not be allowed/able to carry out any experiment they want as a complete freedom would suggest. Their freedom of research must be framed by ethical and moral rules that would make scientists not exceed the established limits.
In this way, each experiment would respect life and environment without hurting the population feelings (sensitivities?) or any precaution principle.
We learn from history that some experiments are not good to carry out. Especially those that served the purposes of war. This is because of this “complete freedom” that some scientists had the idea of creating weapons of mass destruction as the atomic bomb. This same bomb which was used during World War 2 and that destroyed the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing beteween 100 000 and 200 000 citizens.
We could also mention the manipulating of viruses and bacteria as new weapons in the development of bacteriological war which could be a disaster of large proportions as viruses and bacteria can not be stopped that easily.
A complete freedom could lead to excess and deviance as human cloning which consists in creating new human beings strictly identical as others, creating supplies of organs in case of incident with the “original ones”. This definitely devalues human life as human beings would be created as we create machines in an assembly line production. Also, only the richest people would have access to this technology, theoretically giving a chance to survive or live longer only for the richest of us. Moreover, life is sacred and should not be played with as a complete freedom would allow.
Another expression of this complete freedom could be the engineering of human beings by modifying their genomes and selecting the “best genes” to make perfect babies, then perfect human beings. In my opinion, this is extremely shocking and dangerous as it could be the beginning of a new form of eugenism.
The actual situation
Currently, a complete freedom does not exist in theory but some limits are gradually and insidiously overridden to make acceptable things that would not have been agreed many years ago. The best example would be the creation/making of GMOs. By modifying genomes, scientists are already enjoying this complete freedom that make them change something they think they control with all the risks and serious consequences on health and environment that it implies (unknown long term effects of GM food, dominance of GM species over natural ones …).
Other scientific practices are a slippery slope to serious deviance. For example, therapeutic cloning or embryonic stem cells works are an open door to the human cloning, techniques of those three are very comparable and basically close.
In fact, a complete freedom would (make?) require a system of control which would check if dangerous abuses and excesses are being made. Indeed, a complete freedom would simply allow those kinds of abuses, then a system of control would be obsolete and contradictory if each scientist can experiment about everything he thinks of.
We can notice that the only real complete freedom in research would be the one that serve war interests and the energy research (especially the nuclear one) ; some semblance of control exists (International Atomic Energy Agency for example) but is not really successful in detecting misuses or violations.
Moreover, we are not aware of all the experiments that are carried out worldwide. Laboratories will not publish any article about a scientific experiment that goes against ethical and moral rules. These kinds of experiments probably remain secret. This is why a complete freedom is surely possible as long as it remains secret.
Also, our society tends not to know who is right or wrong, if we are supposed to support or condemn scientists who use this freedom of research. For example, some will think that GMO's are a sustainable solution for the future when others think that it will lead us to major life and environment problems. And what about the United States which decerned to the inventor of the Hydrogen bomb the presidential medal of … freedom. Actually, freedom of research do not have the same meaning to each one of us.
-------------------
Modifié par rob13 le 02-05-2013 20:13
-------------------
Modifié par lucile83 le 02-05-2013 21:07
Message de rob13 posté le 02-05-2013 à 20:12:22 (S | E | F)
Hello everybody,
I wrote an essay about freedom of research : "Should scientists have complete freedom in their research ?"
Could you tell me what you think about it, I tried to correct some mistakes but I think that some remained.
Have a nice evening.
Here is the part of my essay I'd like you to check and give me your opinion about. Thank you very much :
We could say that a researcher is free when he can carry out any experiment without any obstacle to his approach//rien n'entrave sa démarche//
(ou) We could define freedom in research as the ability to carry out (perform?) any experiment without any obstacle to the approach. However//Nevertheless, freedom in research (mostly freedom) is purely subjective to each one of us. Then, how far can scientists go with their experiments? Should they really have a “complete freedom” ?
A needed freedom (A necessary freedom)
In one hand, scientists should have a certain freedom in their research. Freedom must be an integral part of the scientific process, it allows the researcher to conduct his experiments without discomfort or stress, or even without concealing/hiding/having to hide
his findings and conclusions.This is thanks to (because of?) this freedom that great discoveries and inventions have been made through(out) history.
A well known example (illustration) of the freedom in research issue would be the condemning of Galileo because of his working on the heliocentrism theory. The church considered his working as an heresy and put pressure on him to make him withdraw his thoughts and admit that he was wrong by threatening him of torture. After what, he has been isolated from the society until his death.
Of course, Galileo should have been free to go on with his research without getting worried by the church. This example clearly shows how freedom in research is important.
Nowadays, we do not especially hear about any lack of freedom in (the) research; this leads us to think/believe that this “natural” freedom they have is sufficient/enough to them. Nevertheless, some experiments raised some issues about how far can scientists go in their research.
A freedom... with rules.
In an other hand scientists should not be allowed/able to carry out any experiment they want as a complete freedom would suggest. Their freedom of research must be framed by ethical and moral rules that would make scientists not exceed the established limits.
In this way, each experiment would respect life and environment without hurting the population feelings (sensitivities?) or any precaution principle.
We learn from history that some experiments are not good to carry out. Especially those that served the purposes of war. This is because of this “complete freedom” that some scientists had the idea of creating weapons of mass destruction as the atomic bomb. This same bomb which was used during World War 2 and that destroyed the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki killing beteween 100 000 and 200 000 citizens.
We could also mention the manipulating of viruses and bacteria as new weapons in the development of bacteriological war which could be a disaster of large proportions as viruses and bacteria can not be stopped that easily.
A complete freedom could lead to excess and deviance as human cloning which consists in creating new human beings strictly identical as others, creating supplies of organs in case of incident with the “original ones”. This definitely devalues human life as human beings would be created as we create machines in an assembly line production. Also, only the richest people would have access to this technology, theoretically giving a chance to survive or live longer only for the richest of us. Moreover, life is sacred and should not be played with as a complete freedom would allow.
Another expression of this complete freedom could be the engineering of human beings by modifying their genomes and selecting the “best genes” to make perfect babies, then perfect human beings. In my opinion, this is extremely shocking and dangerous as it could be the beginning of a new form of eugenism.
The actual situation
Currently, a complete freedom does not exist in theory but some limits are gradually and insidiously overridden to make acceptable things that would not have been agreed many years ago. The best example would be the creation/making of GMOs. By modifying genomes, scientists are already enjoying this complete freedom that make them change something they think they control with all the risks and serious consequences on health and environment that it implies (unknown long term effects of GM food, dominance of GM species over natural ones …).
Other scientific practices are a slippery slope to serious deviance. For example, therapeutic cloning or embryonic stem cells works are an open door to the human cloning, techniques of those three are very comparable and basically close.
In fact, a complete freedom would (make?) require a system of control which would check if dangerous abuses and excesses are being made. Indeed, a complete freedom would simply allow those kinds of abuses, then a system of control would be obsolete and contradictory if each scientist can experiment about everything he thinks of.
We can notice that the only real complete freedom in research would be the one that serve war interests and the energy research (especially the nuclear one) ; some semblance of control exists (International Atomic Energy Agency for example) but is not really successful in detecting misuses or violations.
Moreover, we are not aware of all the experiments that are carried out worldwide. Laboratories will not publish any article about a scientific experiment that goes against ethical and moral rules. These kinds of experiments probably remain secret. This is why a complete freedom is surely possible as long as it remains secret.
Also, our society tends not to know who is right or wrong, if we are supposed to support or condemn scientists who use this freedom of research. For example, some will think that GMO's are a sustainable solution for the future when others think that it will lead us to major life and environment problems. And what about the United States which decerned to the inventor of the Hydrogen bomb the presidential medal of … freedom. Actually, freedom of research do not have the same meaning to each one of us.
-------------------
Modifié par rob13 le 02-05-2013 20:13
-------------------
Modifié par lucile83 le 02-05-2013 21:07
Réponse: Essay/freedom of research de lucile83, postée le 04-05-2013 à 23:52:15 (S | E)
Anyone?
here it's time for bed 
Réponse: Essay/freedom of research de gerondif, postée le 05-05-2013 à 17:53:49 (S | E)
Bonjour,
bleu: à corriger. Vert: corection offerte.
We could say that a researcher is free when he can carry out any experiment without any obstacle to his approach//rien n'entrave sa démarche//
(ou) We could define freedom in research as the ability to carry out (perform?) any experiment without any obstacle to the approach. However//Nevertheless, freedom in research (mostly freedom) is purely subjective to each one of us (for everyone). Then, how far can scientists go with their experiments? Should they really have a(à supprimer) “complete freedom” ?
A needed freedom (A necessary freedom)
In one hand,(On the one hand// on the other hand sont les expressions consacrées) scientists should have a certain freedom in their research. Freedom must be an integral part of the scientific process, it allows the researcher to conduct his experiments without discomfort or stress, or even without concealing/hiding/having to hide his findings and conclusions.
This is thanks to (because of?) this freedom that (français traduit)great discoveries and inventions have been made through(out) history.
A well-known example (illustration) of the freedom in research issue would be the condemning of Galileo because of his working on the heliocentrism theory. The church considered his working as an heresy and put pressure on him to make him withdraw his thoughts and admit that he was wrong by threatening him of torture (to threaten + to + verbe à la base verbale). After what, he has been (prétérit)isolated from the society until his death.
Of course, Galileo should have been free to go on with his research without getting worried by the church. This example clearly shows how freedom in research is important.
Nowadays, we do not especially hear about any lack of freedom in (
A freedom... with rules.
In an other hand scientists should not be allowed/able to carry out any experiment they want (maladroit they want semble en trop)as a complete freedom would suggest. Their freedom of research must be framed by ethical and moral rules that would make scientists not exceed(prevent from irait bien aussi) the established limits.
In this way, each experiment would respect life and environment without hurting the population feelings of the population (sensitivities?) or any precaution principle. (precautionary principle = principe de précaution d'après le dictionnaire en ligne)
We learn from history that some experiments are not good to carry out. Especially those that served the purposes of war. This It is because of this “complete freedom” that some scientists had the idea (+ to + base verbale)of creating weapons of mass destruction as( as = en tant que. like = comme par exemple) the atomic bomb. This very same bomb
We could also mention the manipulating of viruses and bacteria as new weapons in the development of bacteriological war which could be a disaster of large proportions as viruses and bacteria can not ( en un seul mot)be stopped that easily.
A complete freedom could lead to excess and deviance as like human cloning which consists in creating new human beings strictly identical as others, creating supplies of organs in case of incident with the “original ones”. This definitely devalues human life as human beings would be created as we create machines in an assembly line production. Also, only the richest people would have access to this technology, theoretically giving a chance to survive or live longer only for the richest of us. Moreover, life is sacred and should not be played with as a complete freedom would allow.
Another expression of this complete freedom could be the engineering of human beings by modifying their genomes and selecting the “best genes” to make perfect babies, then perfect human beings. In my opinion, this is extremely shocking and dangerous as it could be the beginning of a new form of eugenism.
The actual (au sens de réel ? actual est un faux ami) situation
Currently, a complete freedom does not exist in theory but some limits are gradually and insidiously overridden to make acceptable things that would not have been agreed(allowed) many years ago. The best example would be the creation/making of GMOs. By modifying genomes, scientists are already enjoying this complete freedom that makes them change something they think they control with all the risks and serious consequences on health and environment that it implies (unknown long term effects of GM food, dominance of GM species over natural ones …).(méfiez vous des phrases trop longues, onperd le fil de la construction)
Other scientific practices are a slippery slope to serious deviance. For example, therapeutic cloning or embryonic stem cells works are an open door to the human cloning, the techniques used for those three are very comparable and basically close.
In fact, a complete freedom would
We can notice that the only real complete freedom in research would be the one that serves war interests and the energy research (especially the nuclear one) ; some semblance of control exists (The International Atomic Energy Agency for example) but is not really successful in detecting misuses or violations.
Moreover, we are not aware of all the experiments that are (being) carried out worldwide. Laboratories will not publish any article about a scientific experiment that goes against ethical and moral rules. These kinds of experiments probably remain secret. This is why a complete freedom is surely possible as long as it remains secret.
Also,(Moreover) our society tends not to know who is right or wrong, if we are supposed to support or condemn scientists who use this freedom of research. For example, some will think that GMO's are a sustainable solution for the future when (while/whereas) others think that it will lead us to major life and environment problems. And what about the United States which (je mettrais "who" en personnifiant mais j'ai un doute) decerned to the inventor of the Hydrogen bomb the presidential medal of … freedom. Actually, freedom of research does not have the same meaning to(for) each one of us.
Cours gratuits > Forum > Forum anglais: Questions sur l'anglais
INDISPENSABLES : 