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 considerable debate as to whether scientific research endeavours should be conducted by governmental authorities or private entities, with supporters of both sides citing legitimate arguments. My stance is that the responsibility for scientific undertakings should be nuanced rather than rigid, requiring concerted efforts between the public and private sectors given the concrete benefits each party can bring to the table.

Proponents of private organisations being 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 at circumventing cumbersome bureaucratic hindrances. To this end, privately funded enterprises are more likely to construct laboratories swiftly, 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 important in national and global health crises, such as during the Covid-19 pandemic, when privately owned companies like AstraZeneca and Pfizer successfully synthesised vaccines, resulting in millions of lives saved around the world. By the same token, as far as creativity and novelty are concerned, private companies like OpenAI have led the wave of research, development, and innovation in the AI field, a feat that would have been nearly impossible had it been in the hands of governments.

Those supporting the primary role of governments in carrying out scientific endeavours point to the efficacy of authority oversight. They maintain that governments wield the power to effect change on a larger scale through legislative enactment and enforcement. For this reason, governmental entities are better suited to scientific undertakings involving 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 the public interest, national security, and the well-being of the citizenry. To this end, critical undertakings such as the development of nuclear weapons 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 adherence to ethical considerations, the latter can contribute 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 considerable debate as to whether scientific research endeavours should be conducted by governmental authorities or private entities, with supporters of both sides citing legitimate arguments. My stance is that the responsibility for scientific undertakings should be nuanced rather than rigid, requiring concerted efforts between the public and private sectors given the concrete benefits each party can bring to the table.

Proponents of private organisations being 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 at circumventing cumbersome bureaucratic hindrances. To this end, privately funded enterprises are more likely to construct laboratories swiftly, 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 important in national and global health crises, such as during the Covid-19 pandemic, when privately owned companies like AstraZeneca and Pfizer successfully synthesised vaccines, resulting in millions of lives saved around the world. By the same token, as far as creativity and novelty are concerned, private companies like OpenAI have led the wave of research, development, and innovation in the AI field, a feat that would have been nearly impossible had it been in the hands of governments.

Those supporting the primary role of governments in carrying out scientific endeavours point to the efficacy of authority oversight. They maintain that governments wield the power to effect change on a larger scale through legislative enactment and enforcement. For this reason, governmental entities are better suited to scientific undertakings involving 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 the public interest, national security, and the well-being of the citizenry. To this end, critical undertakings such as the development of nuclear weapons 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 adherence to ethical considerations, the latter can contribute 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

1. considerable debate – cuộc tranh luận đáng kể
2. scientific research endeavours – những nỗ lực nghiên cứu khoa học
3. governmental authorities – cơ quan nhà nước
4. legitimate arguments – lập luận hợp lý
5. scientific undertakings – các công việc nghiên cứu khoa học
6. nuanced rather than rigid – linh hoạt thay vì cứng nhắc
7. concerted efforts – nỗ lực phối hợp
8. concrete benefits – lợi ích cụ thể
9. bring to the table – mang lại giá trị / đóng góp
10. entrusted with – được giao nhiệm vụ
11. prompt and innovative undertakings – các dự án nhanh chóng và sáng tạo
12. circumventing cumbersome bureaucratic hindrances – tránh các trở ngại quan liêu nặng nề
13. privately funded enterprises – doanh nghiệp được tài trợ tư nhân
14. hire the best and brightest minds – tuyển dụng những bộ óc giỏi nhất
15. national and global health crises – khủng hoảng y tế quốc gia và toàn cầu
16. creativity and novelty – sự sáng tạo và tính mới mẻ
17. led the wave – dẫn đầu xu hướng
18. authority oversight – sự giám sát của cơ quan có thẩm quyền
19. safeguarding the public interest – bảo vệ lợi ích công cộng
20. unified, structured, and ethical framework – khung pháp lý / hệ thống thống nhất, có cấu trúc và đạo đức

✔ DÀN Ý

Mở bài:

• Giới thiệu vấn đề: Tranh cãi về việc nghiên cứu khoa học nên do chính phủ hay tổ chức tư nhân thực hiện.
• Quan điểm: Cần hợp tác giữa chính phủ và tư nhân vì mỗi bên có lợi thế riêng.

Thân bài 1 – Lợi thế của tư nhân:

• Nhanh chóng, linh hoạt: Không bị ràng buộc nhiều bởi thủ tục hành chính, xử lý vấn đề kịp thời.
• Sáng tạo và đổi mới: Dẫn đầu trong các lĩnh vực công nghệ, AI (ví dụ OpenAI).
• Nguồn lực tài chính mạnh: Có khả năng đầu tư lớn cho nghiên cứu.
• Ví dụ: Covid-19 – AstraZeneca, Pfizer sản xuất vaccine nhanh, cứu hàng triệu người.

Thân bài 2 – Lợi thế của chính phủ:

• Giám sát và luật pháp: Có thể điều chỉnh, kiểm soát quy mô lớn và đảm bảo quyền lợi công chúng.
• Đảm bảo đạo đức và nhân quyền: Tránh lợi ích cá nhân chi phối, phù hợp với các nghiên cứu nhạy cảm (vũ khí hạt nhân, chỉnh gen).
• Lợi ích lâu dài: Đảm bảo an ninh quốc gia, lợi ích cộng đồng.

Kết bài:

• Khẳng định cần hợp tác giữa chính phủ và tư nhân.
• Chính phủ: giám sát, đạo đức.
• Tư nhân: nhanh, sáng tạo, tài chính mạnh.
• Hợp tác tạo ra khuôn khổ nghiên cứu hiệu quả, bền vững và đạo đức.