TASK 2 (AGREE OR DISAGREE): SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
Some people think that scientific research should be carried out by the governments rather than private companies. To what extent do you agree or disagree ?
Sample Answer
There has been a considerable debate as to whether scientific research endeavours should be conducted by governmental authorities or private entities, with supporters of both sides citing legitimate defenses. My stance is that the responsibility for scientific undertakings should be nuanced rather than rigid, requiring concerted efforts between public and private sectors given the concrete benefits each party can bring to the table.
Proponents of private organisations deservedly entrusted with scientific research point to select case studies of prompt and innovative undertakings. These advocates maintain that the vast majority of private companies operate independently and, therefore, are not required to strictly follow standard governmental procedures, meaning that they are arguably better in circumventing cumbersome bureaucratic hindrances. To this end, privately funded enterprises are more likely to promptly construct laboratories, hire the best and brightest minds in the scientific community, and thus achieve desirable results in a shorter span of time. This promptness is particularly of paramount importance in national and global health crises, such as during the Covid-19 pandemic, when privately owned companies like Astra Zeneca and Pfizer successfully synthesised vaccines, resulting in the saving of millions of lives around the world. By the same token, as far as creativity and novelty are concerned, private companies like OpenAI pioneered the wave of research, development, and innovation in the AI field, the feat that would have been nearly impossible had it been in the hands of governments.
Those supporting the primary role of the government in carrying out scientific endeavours point to the efficacy of authority oversight. They maintain that governments wield the power to affect change on a larger scale, by comparison, through legislative enactment and enforcement. For this reason, governmental entities are better suited to scientific undertakings encompassing ethical considerations and human rights concerns. Unlike privately owned organisations whose self-serving interests and the egocentricity of their leaders may drive them towards overlooking legitimate ethical concerns, it is prudent to assume that governments are tasked with safeguarding public interest, national interest, and the well-being of the citizenry. To this end, critical undertakings, such as the development of nuclear firearms and genetic engineering, tend to be high on the agenda of governments worldwide rather than in the hands of private business leaders.
In conclusion, I believe that the conducting of scientific research requires collaborative efforts between both governments and private entities: while the former can provide regulatory oversight and respect over ethical considerations, the latter can bring to the table promptness, creativity, innovation, and perhaps abundant financial resources. The ultimate collaborative incentive would involve governments discarding cumbersome bureaucratic procedures and businesses improving their moral compass, thereby fostering a unified, structured, and ethical framework for long-term and sustainable outcomes.
Marking by Chat GPT Plus
 |
TỪ VỰNG HAY
Some people think that scientific research should be carried out by the governments rather than private companies. To what extent do you agree or disagree ?
There has been a considerable debate as to whether scientific research endeavours should be conducted by governmental authorities or private entities, with supporters of both sides citing legitimate defenses. My stance is that the responsibility for scientific undertakings should be nuanced rather than rigid, requiring concerted efforts between public and private sectors given the concrete benefits each party can bring to the table.
Proponents of private organisations deservedly entrusted with scientific research point to select case studies of prompt and innovative undertakings. These advocates maintain that the vast majority of private companies operate independently and, therefore, are not required to strictly follow standard governmental procedures, meaning that they are arguably better in circumventing cumbersome bureaucratic hindrances. To this end, privately funded enterprises are more likely to promptly construct laboratories, hire the best and brightest minds in the scientific community, and thus achieve desirable results in a shorter span of time. This promptness is particularly of paramount importance in national and global health crises, such as during the Covid-19 pandemic, when privately owned companies like Astra Zeneca and Pfizer successfully synthesised vaccines, resulting in the saving of millions of lives around the world. By the same token, as far as creativity and novelty are concerned, private companies like OpenAI pioneered the wave of research, development, and innovation in the AI field, the feat that would have been nearly impossible had it been in the hands of governments.
Those supporting the primary role of the government in carrying out scientific endeavours point to the efficacy of authority oversight. They maintain that governments wield the power to affect change on a larger scale, by comparison, through legislative enactment and enforcement. For this reason, governmental entities are better suited to scientific undertakings encompassing ethical considerations and human rights concerns. Unlike privately owned organisations whose self-serving interests and the egocentricity of their leaders may drive them towards overlooking legitimate ethical concerns, it is prudent to assume that governments are tasked with safeguarding public interest, national interest, and the well-being of the citizenry. To this end, critical undertakings, such as the development of nuclear firearms and genetic engineering, tend to be high on the agenda of governments worldwide rather than in the hands of private business leaders.
In conclusion, I believe that the conducting of scientific research requires collaborative efforts between both governments and private entities: while the former can provide regulatory oversight and respect over ethical considerations, the latter can bring to the table promptness, creativity, innovation, and perhaps abundant financial resources. The ultimate collaborative incentive would involve governments discarding cumbersome bureaucratic procedures and businesses improving their moral compass, thereby fostering a unified, structured, and ethical framework for long-term and sustainable outcomes.
Vocabulary
- considerable debate – cuộc tranh luận đáng kể
- scientific research endeavours – nỗ lực nghiên cứu khoa học
- governmental authorities – cơ quan chính phủ
- legitimate defenses – lập luận hợp lý
- scientific undertakings – công trình khoa học
- concerted efforts – nỗ lực phối hợp
- concrete benefits – lợi ích cụ thể
- deservedly entrusted – được tin tưởng xứng đáng
- innovative undertakings – công trình đổi mới
- cumbersome bureaucratic hindrances – rào cản quan liêu rườm rà
- best and brightest minds – những bộ óc xuất sắc nhất
- desirable results – kết quả mong muốn
- paramount importance – tầm quan trọng hàng đầu
- synthesised vaccines – điều chế vắc-xin
- pioneered the wave – tiên phong làn sóng
- authority oversight – sự giám sát của cơ quan chức trách
- affect change – tạo ra thay đổi
- legislative enactment – ban hành luật
- ethical considerations – cân nhắc đạo đức
- high on the agenda – ưu tiên hàng đầu
✔ DÀN Ý
Mở bài:
- Tranh luận: Nghiên cứu khoa học nên do chính phủ hay tư nhân thực hiện.
- Quan điểm: Cần hợp tác giữa hai bên để tận dụng thế mạnh của mỗi bên.
Thân bài 1 – Lợi thế khu vực tư nhân:
- Nhanh và sáng tạo: Không bị ràng buộc nhiều thủ tục, dễ xây phòng thí nghiệm, tuyển người giỏi, đạt kết quả nhanh.
- Ví dụ: AstraZeneca & Pfizer chế tạo vaccine Covid-19 nhanh, cứu hàng triệu người.
- Đổi mới công nghệ: OpenAI tiên phong trong AI – điều khó nếu do chính phủ làm.
Thân bài 2 – Lợi thế chính phủ:
- Quy mô và kiểm soát: Có quyền lập và thực thi luật, giám sát đạo đức.
- Bảo vệ lợi ích công cộng: Tránh tư nhân vì lợi ích cá nhân mà bỏ qua đạo đức.
- Ví dụ: Vũ khí hạt nhân, công nghệ gene – ưu tiên nằm trong tay chính phủ.
Kết luận:
- Cần hợp tác: Chính phủ đảm bảo luật & đạo đức, tư nhân mang lại tốc độ, sáng tạo, nguồn lực.
- Hai bên cần cải thiện: Chính phủ giảm quan liêu, doanh nghiệp nâng cao đạo đức → khung hợp tác bền vững.
