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?"

嘉文博译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)

参考译文

当我们为科学、教育或任何其他领域确定研究优先权时，需要考虑的一个最重要的问题是：如果研究结果获得成功，有多少人的生活将由此得以改善

要讨论上述论题，我们必须首先作出这样的假设，即资源是有限的，因此，研究优先权的确定必须基于这些有限的资源。这些资源将囊括全体研究人员及可用于研究的资金。作为一项绝对陈述，将得以改善的生活的数量作为基础，这初看上去不失为一种简单和不言而喻的方法，用来确定哪些优先权应该被赋予哪些类研究。但在实际上，政治，某一特定领域中所能获得的研究人员数量，以及所能获得的全部研究经费都在很大程度上决定着优先权应赋予何种研究。

不幸的是，在诸多情形中，研究优先权越来越与政府政治交织在一起。例如，当艾滋病最初出现时，这种病主要被视作一种同性恋病症或一种非洲穷人所患的病。这样政客们便觉得竭力去弄钱来对付这种疾病没有太大的回报。起初，用于研究这一致命疾病的病因和潜在疗法的资金少得可怜。随着越来越多的病例被诊断出来，人们最终恍然大悟，这种病并非仅限于非洲穷人和同性恋者，并且它实际上正越来越扩散至其他群体的人身上。这促使政客们行动起来，将更多的钱应用于对付艾滋病的科研上，但现在看来依然远远不够。如果研究优先权纯粹基于能得以改善的生活数量上，我们就会尴尬地发现，全世界数百万人受此病毒感染。但由于这一疾病仍基本上被视为主要影响非洲穷人的一种疾病，政客们一直不愿意大规模增加对这一致命疾病的研究经费。

另一个必须考虑的因素是某一特定领域中所能获得的研究人员的数量。如果政客们实际上能够被说服将艾滋病当作其首要的研究课题并为该项目提供无限的科研经费的话，这或许能使世界上最多数量的人从中获益。但倘若没有足够数量受过恰当训练的研究人员，再多的资金投入也无法推动这项研究朝着更快的方向发展。经费或许能用来鼓励更多受过高端训练的人们进入这一领域，但这得进行多年的训练，然后才有望从中受益。

最后，所能获得的研究经费的数额也对确定研究优先权存在明显的影响。政治、研究人员的数量、以及经费不可分割地全都交织在一起，从而使改善最多数量的人们的生活这一简单的目标都无法得以实现。在许多国家，根本弄不到任何资金来进行任何性质的研究，因为这些国家只是些勉强维持生存的国家，甚至还缺乏充足的资金来使其人口得以果腹。另有一些国家根本就缺乏将资金用于研究的欲望，更愿意将钱花在房屋建设项目或其他领域。在没有充足的资金进行研究的情况下，就只能从事某些基本层面上的研究。优先权只能依据政府所能拿得出来的钱的数额以及这笔钱所能发挥的最大潜在作用来确定，而不是依据所能从研究中获益的绝对人数。

从理论上讲，依据受益者的人数来划分研究优先权，这不失为一种实用而又简单的决策方式。但实际上，确定哪些效益最为重要，政治因素、所能获得的研究人员的数量、以及研究资金都致使这一决策变得远为困难。或许有朝一日，随着技术的进步，人类能使这一理想变作现实。