Researchers should not limit their investigations to practical application

[Nayara]

PLEASE CORRECT AND RATE MY ESSAY

Claim: Researchers should not limit their investigations to only those areas in which they expect to discover something that has an immediate, practical application.

Reason: It is impossible to predict the outcome of a line of research with any certainty.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.

There is a famous quotation that says “What is now proved was once only imagined”. Currently, it is a general idea that the scientists should concentrate their researches on discovering of things that have immediately pratical application, for example, new therapies and technologies. However, the basic research is also very important, even though the researchers in this kind of investigation have any certain about the outcomes.
The more important discoveries come from studies about unknown things. A compelling example is the DNA structure discovery. At the time of this discovery, there was any pratical application for this. However, nowadays there is a bulk of application, such as DNA sequecing, DNA manipulation in order to produce recombinant proteins, new anti-cancer drugs that bind to the DNA molecule and so on.
In addition, the racional discovery of new drugs is based on targets. I mean, the scientists first study which protein, enzyme or other molecule is the main problem in a certain disease and then try to design a drug. Therefore, the investigation about the molecular basis of the diseases, although does not have immediate application is extremely important.
In conclusion, based on previuous arguments, I believe that researchers should not limit their studies in areas that have immediate application. In fact, it is crucial that the researches return some innovation to the society, however, the investigation about the unknown is vital to the development of the science.

[Luschen]

Hi Nayara, I thought this was an improvement from you previous essay - the thesis statement is stronger and your organization seems much better. Still, you do have quite a few minor errors that makes some of your writing sound unnatural.

@Nayara

PLEASE CORRECT AND RATE MY ESSAY

Claim: Researchers should not limit their investigations to only those areas in which they expect to discover something that has an immediate, practical application.

Reason: It is impossible to predict the outcome of a line of research with any certainty.

Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim and the reason on which that claim is based.

There is a famous quotation that says “What is now proved was once only imagined”. Currently, it is a general idea that the scientists should concentrate their researches on discovering of things that have immediately {this modifies application, not practical, so needs to be an adjective} pra[c]tical application, for example, new therapies and technologies. However, the basic research is also very important, even though the researchers in this kind of investigation have any certain [no certainty] about the outcomes.
{add a transition here} The more important discoveries come from studies about unknown things. A compelling example is the DNA structure discovery.{“discovery of the structure of DNA” sounds more natutal} At the time of this discovery, there was any [no] {or “not any”} pratical application for this. However, nowadays there is a bulk{“application” is countable, so you have to use a countable adjective} of application[s ], such as DNA sequecing, DNA manipulation in order to produce recombinant proteins, new anti-cancer drugs that bind to the DNA molecule and so on.
In addition, the racional{“rational”? still does not really work here} discovery of new drugs is based on targets. I mean, the scientists first study which protein, enzyme or other molecule is the main problem in a certain disease and then try to design a drug. Therefore, the investigation about the molecular basis of the diseases, although [it] does not have immediate application[,] is extremely important.
In conclusion, based on [these] {or “my”} previuous arguments, I believe that researchers should not limit their studies in [to] areas that have immediate application. In fact, it is crucial that the researches return some innovation to the society, however, the investigation {I would say “In fact, although it is crucial … society, the investigation”} about the unknown is vital to the development of the science.

[Nayara]

Thanks!