GRE作文范文 Issue-12

"When research priorities are being set for science, education, or any other area, the most important question to consider is: how many people's lives will be improved if the results are successful?"

嘉文博譯Sample Essay

To discuss this statement, one must begin with the assumption that resources are limited, as they almost always are, and that therefore research priorities must be set based on those finite resources. Those resources would include the total number of researchers as well as the money available for the research. As an absolute statement, using the basis of the total number of lives improved would at first glance appear to be a simple and clear cut method to determine what priorities are given to what types of research. But in reality, politics, the number of available researchers in a given field and the total funding available all determine to a large extent where research priorities must lie.

Unfortunately, in a great deal of instances, research priorities are increasingly intertwined with governmental politics. As one example, when the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) first appeared, it was seen primarily as a homosexual disease or a disease that afflicted very poor Africans. As a result, politicians saw little reward in pushing for money to fight the disease. In the beginning, very little money was spent on researching the causes and potential cures for this deadly disease. As more and more cases were diagnosed, it eventually became clear that the disease was not limited to poor Africans and homosexuals and it was in fact increasingly spreading to the rest of the population. This motivated politicians to act to spend more money on research to combat AIDS, but it is likely still not enough. If research priorities were based purely on the number of people's lives that could be improved, one would be hard pressed to find a higher priority. The number of people that are infected with HIV, the virus that causes AIDS, is in the hundreds of millions. But as the disease is still seen primarily as one affecting mainly poor Africans, politicians have been reluctant to significantly increase spending on researching the deadly disease.

Another factor that must be considered is the number of researchers available in a given field. If politicians could actually be persuaded to focus on AIDS as their top research priority and dedicated unlimited funding to the project, maybe this would benefit the most people throughout the world. Yet without enough properly trained researchers, all of the money in the world cannot move the research along any faster. Perhaps the money could be used to encourage more highly trained people to enter the field, but that would take years of training before the benefits could be seen.

Finally, the amount of funding available for research has a clear impact on where the research priorities will lie. Politics, the number of researchers and funding are all interwoven together in an inseparable bundle that makes a simple goal such as improving the highest number of people's lives impossible to reach. In many countries, there is simply no money available for research of any kind as they are merely subsistent countries that even lack adequate funding to properly feed their own populations. Other countries may simply lack the desire to spend money on research, preferring to spend money on construction projects or other areas. Without adequate funding where research is done, only certain types of basic level research can be performed. Priorities must be made according to what the government can afford and where its highest potential lies, rather than the absolute number of people that can benefit from such research.

In theory, assigning research priorities by the number of people that will benefit is a practical and simple way to make a decision. In reality, defining which benefits are most important, politics, the number of researchers available and funding make the decision much more difficult. Maybe someday in the future, with technological advances, mankind can afford to make this theory become a reality.

(634 words)

參考譯文

當(dāng)我們?yōu)榭茖W(xué)、教育或任何其他領(lǐng)域確定研究優(yōu)先權(quán)時，需要考慮的一個最重要的問題是：如果研究結(jié)果獲得成功，有多少人的生活將由此得以改善

要討論上述論題，我們必須首先作出這樣的假設(shè)，即資源是有限的，因此，研究優(yōu)先權(quán)的確定必須基于這些有限的資源。這些資源將囊括全體研究人員及可用于研究的資金。作為一項絕對陳述，將得以改善的生活的數(shù)量作為基礎(chǔ)，這初看上去不失為一種簡單和不言而喻的方法，用來確定哪些優(yōu)先權(quán)應(yīng)該被賦予哪些類研究。但在實際上，政治，某一特定領(lǐng)域中所能獲得的研究人員數(shù)量，以及所能獲得的全部研究經(jīng)費都在很大程度上決定著優(yōu)先權(quán)應(yīng)賦予何種研究。

不幸的是，在諸多情形中，研究優(yōu)先權(quán)越來越與政府政治交織在一起。例如，當(dāng)艾滋病最初出現(xiàn)時，這種病主要被視作一種同性戀病癥或一種非洲窮人所患的病。這樣政客們便覺得竭力去弄錢來對付這種疾病沒有太大的回報。起初，用于研究這一致命疾病的病因和潛在療法的資金少得可憐。隨著越來越多的病例被診斷出來，人們最終恍然大悟，這種病并非僅限于非洲窮人和同性戀者，并且它實際上正越來越擴散至其他群體的人身上。這促使政客們行動起來，將更多的錢應(yīng)用于對付艾滋病的科研上，但現(xiàn)在看來依然遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不夠。如果研究優(yōu)先權(quán)純粹基于能得以改善的生活數(shù)量上，我們就會尷尬地發(fā)現(xiàn)，全世界數(shù)百萬人受此病毒感染。但由于這一疾病仍基本上被視為主要影響非洲窮人的一種疾病，政客們一直不愿意大規(guī)模增加對這一致命疾病的研究經(jīng)費。

另一個必須考慮的因素是某一特定領(lǐng)域中所能獲得的研究人員的數(shù)量。如果政客們實際上能夠被說服將艾滋病當(dāng)作其首要的研究課題并為該項目提供無限的科研經(jīng)費的話，這或許能使世界上最多數(shù)量的人從中獲益。但倘若沒有足夠數(shù)量受過恰當(dāng)訓(xùn)練的研究人員，再多的資金投入也無法推動這項研究朝著更快的方向發(fā)展。經(jīng)費或許能用來鼓勵更多受過高端訓(xùn)練的人們進入這一領(lǐng)域，但這得進行多年的訓(xùn)練，然后才有望從中受益。

最后，所能獲得的研究經(jīng)費的數(shù)額也對確定研究優(yōu)先權(quán)存在明顯的影響。政治、研究人員的數(shù)量、以及經(jīng)費不可分割地全都交織在一起，從而使改善最多數(shù)量的人們的生活這一簡單的目標(biāo)都無法得以實現(xiàn)。在許多國家，根本弄不到任何資金來進行任何性質(zhì)的研究，因為這些國家只是些勉強維持生存的國家，甚至還缺乏充足的資金來使其人口得以果腹。另有一些國家根本就缺乏將資金用于研究的欲望，更愿意將錢花在房屋建設(shè)項目或其他領(lǐng)域。在沒有充足的資金進行研究的情況下，就只能從事某些基本層面上的研究。優(yōu)先權(quán)只能依據(jù)政府所能拿得出來的錢的數(shù)額以及這筆錢所能發(fā)揮的最大潛在作用來確定，而不是依據(jù)所能從研究中獲益的絕對人數(shù)。

從理論上講，依據(jù)受益者的人數(shù)來劃分研究優(yōu)先權(quán)，這不失為一種實用而又簡單的決策方式。但實際上，確定哪些效益最為重要，政治因素、所能獲得的研究人員的數(shù)量、以及研究資金都致使這一決策變得遠(yuǎn)為困難?；蛟S有朝一日，隨著技術(shù)的進步，人類能使這一理想變作現(xiàn)實。