Do you think science and technology has done more good than bad?
Science and technology plays an all the time more vital role in people's lives, making the truthful communication of scientific developments more imperative than ever. Yet, such communication is fraught with challenges that can easily distort discussions, leading to unnecessary confusion and misunderstandings. However, none can deny the benefits science and technology has endowed with us, which have enhanced our lives in its small yet significant ways. These affirmative repercussions do outweigh the off-putting aftermath that many put the accent on. Hence, I concur that science and technology has done more good than bad.
How can one forget the amount of invaluable time saved on traveling now as compared to when expeditious vehicles like airplanes were not invented? Or the luxury of being able to see in the dark, and thus making the most of our time, with the birth of light bulbs? These are often neglected and taken for granted by many, who do not realize just how much developments in science and technology has done for us, making our everyday life smoother-going and hassle-free.
Recently, many scientists have been recognized for their achievements in science research of various forms. For instance, Associate Professor Zhang Lian Hui, Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology, was among the pioneers in research on hidden communication among bacteria. Using several novel enzymes and chemicals, he demonstrated a new way to control infectious disease by stopping microbial communication. Another example is Dr Leonard Ang, Singapore National Eye Centre and National University of Singapore, whose work with stem cells taken from the eye have helped establish Singapore as a leading centre in the world for eye-disease treatment and stem-cell research and transplantation. He has pioneered safer ways to grow stem cells without the traditional animal serum or donated human tissue. This eliminates any chance of rejection or transmission of disease to the recipient. Other than these discoveries of medical science that will improve the health of people, Associate Professor Edward Teo, Department of Physics, National University of Singapore, researches on general relativity, quantum gravity and string theory. In particular, his globally known work on the study of multiple black holes brought great impact on the study and conservation of the environment.
Such are only a few of the plentiful breakthroughs in the field of science and technology that have impacted our lives in one way or another. Here, we can see to it that science and technology has indeed done a great deal of good to us.
No doubt there are still disapproving upshots, especially on ethics, which have aroused the concern of many people. Examples include Dr Simon Shorvon, who committed serious ethical breaches by treating patients like experimental subjects without rights, and the eggs-for-sale scandal surrounding South Korea's embattled cloning hero Hwang Woo Suk that has deepened after a news report revealed that possibly hundreds of eggs had been bought for his lab with the women unaware they were being used for research. These illustrate that there are undeniably a minority group of scientists who are so hungry for fame and recognition that they took the wrong step, setting off some pessimistic outcomes and issues that many accused have resulted from the development of science and technology.
Then again, we cannot rebuff the good just because some black sheep are lurking among those otherwise. We should not let our anger and disparity in opinions reign above our conscience. Indubitably, science and technology has beget upon us innumerable conveniences and improvements, without which our lives will be no different from that a millennium ago.
posted by tmefbthar* @ 3:23 PM
4 Comments:
A very well done opening that leads the reader into your discussion smoothly! The English is frankly stupendous with great variations in sentence structure that made me believe I was reading off TIME magazine. Language apart, the argument is also very well-balanced though I have some reservations in that point; it is a little too equalized for your stand of concurring that science and technology has done more good than bad.
The second paragraph had great rhetoric that works because it is easy to follow from those factors that S&T has indeed increased our quality of life and of course maximized our time. Certainly, no one would deny those points.
The third came with facts that supported your point of advancements which convinces us that S&T developments brought about many benefits. Not left just as examples, the evidences brought up were evaluated and linked back to the question of benefiting. This clears any doubt the reader might have of the discovery or invention which conferred higher degrees of persuasiveness.
A balancing attempt was made in the fifth paragraph, listing a few scandals that revolved the scientific world in the recent decade. Undeniably, S&T did bring in some bad which you dutifully recognized which is good but it turned the tables on you since the scandals did a great deal of negative impact on people. The degree was not measured in anyway hence the balance had done a disfavor to your well-built argument. I feel a good way to pull the argument back from being skewed against the stand is to introduce the growing of concern in ethics of research (particularly in S&T). You could reason that as much as these negative developments hurt the integrity of developments in S&T, it highlighted to people the importance of having a governing authority to control what goes on in laboratories. Presumably, without the development in S&T, these issues would not have generated necessity and Man’s morality would not have gained extra attention and grew in sophistication. This weaves the argument to a nice close that even thought some bad had been generated from S&T, the bad had yielded some good.
This could be a better balance for it had considered a much deeper meaning compared to measuring the degree of good and bad simply by the frequency. Frequency, it appears, does not imply the magnitude of harm or benefit a particular matter initiated.
I agree with chee kong on his comments about your essay. Indeed the opening paragraph orientates the reader to what you are going to say later on. The approach and stand are both clear and straight to the point.
The paragraphs are crafted in a very appropriate manner that allows you to support your claim that S and T has done more good than bad which is a claim of fact. The paragraphs are loaded with plain facts that are not refutable which then support a similarly strong stand. The linking of the evidence back to the question was also done nicely.
The point of the argument being over-equalised raised by chee kong is one that i do not agree with. Instead it is that the balancing paragraph was not used to its full potential in my opinion. The paragraph should have included more of your own arguments to rebuff the opposing view. Although an attempt at that was made in the concluding paragraph it is still insufficient. Also, some attempts at complicated sentence structure seemed incorrect to me, but it is nonetheless a very good try as it adds a very professional touch. Other than that, all the other paragraphs are very well done.
I agree with chee kong on his comments about your essay. Indeed the opening paragraph orientates the reader to what you are going to say later on. The approach and stand are both clear and straight to the point.
The paragraphs are crafted in a very appropriate manner that allows you to support your claim that S and T has done more good than bad which is a claim of fact. The paragraphs are loaded with plain facts that are not refutable which then support a similarly strong stand. The linking of the evidence back to the question was also done nicely.
The point of the argument being over-equalised raised by chee kong is one that i do not agree with. Instead it is that the balancing paragraph was not used to its full potential in my opinion. The paragraph should have included more of your own arguments to rebutt the opposing view. Although an attempt at that was made in the concluding paragraph it is still insufficient. Also, some attempts at complicated sentence structure seemed incorrect to me, but it is nonetheless a very good try as it adds a very professional touch. Other than that, all the other paragraphs are very well done.
Sorry that was a double post due to some website errors please ignore one of the posts.
Post a Comment
<< Home