Science used to be a cause of wonder and curiosity from discovering what is beyond our planet to understanding the intricacies of nature. However, in recent years science has become a topic of dread for people. For some people, it is because they don’t understand the language that scientists use other times people believe that the research doesn’t affect them and are oblivious to how much science directly impacts their lives. There are still people who are genuinely curious about science and actively pursue to understand scientists’ research discover that there are many conflicting scientific opinions, and it becomes hard to decipher which opinion is true because both have evidence to prove their point. The real question becomes why do these
…show more content…
He says, “The greatest and most creative ideas...always involve taking a risk. But when public funding for science decreases, the pool of applications for grants become hyper-competitive, and this incentivizes researchers to submit proposals for ‘safe’ projects whose findings would be incremental at best.” For the most part, this quote makes sense to his audience, but McCullough’s complex wording eventually confuses his audience and his reader 's become unsure of what he is trying to say. While it is clear that McCullough has a strong opinion on the subject, his usage of data feels lacking. He only has one piece of actual data, and that is something along the lines of the fact that Federal Funding has decreased significantly and will result in “threatening our nation’s… ability to compete in an increasingly global race for knowledge.” However, as the audience reads his article they often wonder how accurately McCullough is representing the situation.
Rush D. Holt claims that a balance of federal and corporate funding is needed to kickstart more scientific progress and innovation in his essay called “We Need Both Corporate Funding and Federal Funding.” Holt points out that while corporations are good at the developmental stage of products, the federal government is willing to fund research that corporations aren’t willing to look into. He also points out that …show more content…
Science reaches out and touches all aspects of society, and when research is falsified it has many often unseen negative consequences that are very serious, and corporations don’t care about the consequences and often ignore how they affect real people. All that they care about is taking advantage of the public’s ignorance in order to receive more money. I don’t, however, feel that all the blame should be placed on the shoulders of the scientists. Without money, scientists cannot research anything at all. I think scientists are trying to do as much good as they can with what they have, and corporations are the ones taking advantage of the scientists need for funding. In regards to the funding issue, I think that a balance of federal and corporate funding to maximize the amount of money scientists receive for research expanding scientists’ parameters and encouraging progressive research. I think the solution to stop unreliable research is for scientists to create their own independent organization that would place a check on corporations, run internal affairs, and ensure that all research is as honest and unbiased as
He says, “The greatest and most creative ideas...always involve taking a risk. But when public funding for science decreases, the pool of applications for grants become hyper-competitive, and this incentivizes researchers to submit proposals for ‘safe’ projects whose findings would be incremental at best.” For the most part, this quote makes sense to his audience, but McCullough’s complex wording eventually confuses his audience and his reader 's become unsure of what he is trying to say. While it is clear that McCullough has a strong opinion on the subject, his usage of data feels lacking. He only has one piece of actual data, and that is something along the lines of the fact that Federal Funding has decreased significantly and will result in “threatening our nation’s… ability to compete in an increasingly global race for knowledge.” However, as the audience reads his article they often wonder how accurately McCullough is representing the situation.
Rush D. Holt claims that a balance of federal and corporate funding is needed to kickstart more scientific progress and innovation in his essay called “We Need Both Corporate Funding and Federal Funding.” Holt points out that while corporations are good at the developmental stage of products, the federal government is willing to fund research that corporations aren’t willing to look into. He also points out that …show more content…
Science reaches out and touches all aspects of society, and when research is falsified it has many often unseen negative consequences that are very serious, and corporations don’t care about the consequences and often ignore how they affect real people. All that they care about is taking advantage of the public’s ignorance in order to receive more money. I don’t, however, feel that all the blame should be placed on the shoulders of the scientists. Without money, scientists cannot research anything at all. I think scientists are trying to do as much good as they can with what they have, and corporations are the ones taking advantage of the scientists need for funding. In regards to the funding issue, I think that a balance of federal and corporate funding to maximize the amount of money scientists receive for research expanding scientists’ parameters and encouraging progressive research. I think the solution to stop unreliable research is for scientists to create their own independent organization that would place a check on corporations, run internal affairs, and ensure that all research is as honest and unbiased as