Critique my writing samples

[vsl5]

Consider this statement:
Scientific inquiry is rooted in the desire to discover, but there is no discovery so important that in its pursuit a threat to human life can be tolerated.

Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statements means. Describe a specific situation in which a threat to human life might be tolerated in the pursuit of scientific discovery. Discuss what you think determines when the pursuit of scientific discovery is more important than the protection of human life.

The main goal of scientific inquiry is the pursuit of knowledge and truth for the benefit of mankind. However, there is a limit at which the value of a discovery is outweighed by the cost. This limit is the worth of a human life and is echoed by the given statement.
In most cases, scientific inquiry can easily be carried out by experiments that exclude danger to humans, such as performing animal experiments or by being carried out in a safe manner such that any risk is minimal. However, there are certain fields in which risks are necessary and all other methods of investigation have been exhausted. For example, upon manufacturing a novel cancer drug, a pharmaceutical company will test the drug’s toxicity on animal models or other methods. Eventually, the drug must be tested on humans in clinical trials in order to determine its true effectiveness and if there are any side effects. In this case, there is absolutely no other option except to test the drug on humans and this will inevitably put lives at risk as some patients will suffer severe side effects or death. If the drug works as intended, many lives could be saved. If the clinical trials were not carried out, the drug would not be approved and society would not benefit from its use. In this case, most people would accept the risk as a necessary cost given the potential benefit of the drug.
A balance must be established between scientific knowledge and its threat to human life. If the discovery has the potential to save many lives, this will offset the risk of danger encountered during the process. However, if the scientific inquiry is likely to lead to very little benefit or use to the general population, then the cost of a possible threat to human life is intolerable. Another factor to consider is the design of the experiments underlying the scientific investigation. If a method can be devised that does not pose a threat to human life and provides equally conclusive results, then adopting the riskier approach would be obviously unacceptable.


thanks

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[TieuBachHo]

Scientific inquiry is rooted in the desire to discover, but there is no discovery so important that in its pursuit a threat to human life can be tolerated.

Write a unified essay in which you perform the following tasks. Explain what you think the above statements means. Describe a specific situation in which a threat to human life might be tolerated in the pursuit of scientific discovery. Discuss what you think determines when the pursuit of scientific discovery is more important than the protection of human life.

The main goal of scientific inquiry is the pursuit of knowledge and truth for the benefit of mankind. However, there is a limit at which the value of a discovery is outweighed by the cost. This limit is the worth of a human life and is echoed by the given statement.

-- This "the given statement" is too generic. The reader don't take time to refer back to what the statement means. For example, you can say something like, "... is echoed by the intolerance beyond scientific boundary"

In most cases, scientific inquiry can easily be carried out by experiments that exclude danger to humans, such as performing animal experiments or by being carried out in a safe manner such that any risk is minimal. However, there are certain fields in which risks are necessary and all other methods of investigation have been exhausted. For example, upon manufacturing a novel cancer drug, a pharmaceutical company will test the drug's toxicity on animal models or other methods. Eventually, the drug must be tested on humans in clinical trials in order to determine its true effectiveness and if there are any side effects. In this case, there is absolutely no other option except to test the drug on humans and this will inevitably put lives at risk as some patients will suffer severe side effects or death. If the drug works as intended, many lives could be saved. If the clinical trials were not carried out, the drug would not be approved and society would not benefit from its use. In this case, most people would accept the risk as a necessary cost given the potential benefit of the drug.

-- Can you name a specific drug or case? This would amplify your paragraph.

A balance must be established between scientific knowledge and its threat to human life. If the discovery has the potential to save many lives, this will offset the risk of danger encountered during the process. However, if the scientific inquiry is likely to lead to very little benefit or use to the general population, then the cost of a possible threat to human life is intolerable. Another factor to consider is the design of the experiments underlying the scientific investigation. If a method can be devised that does not pose a threat to human life and provides equally conclusive results, then adopting the riskier approach would be obviously unacceptable.

-- I think this is a good synthesis.
IMO, all tasks are well addressed but it could've been better with just a few tweaks.

 

[lorenzomicron]

I think one point which will make your prose stronger is that you should use the concept of a topic sentence for the paragraphs. instead of jumping straight into the examples in each paragraph, summarize the principle behind the examples first.

also the first three sentences seem to pretty much drag out the point you want to make. consider one or two more precise sentences.

and the last sentence does not seem as strikingly powerful as it should be when writing about such an ethically-rife topic. consider modifying the structure of the piece to really make a powerful ending. it will go a long way towards making the piece more potent.

 

[vsl5]

Thanks for the feedback. I know that using a real example would have been better but I couldnt think of any. Is this all that important? many of the sample essays on the AAMC site don't use specific examples or if they do, they are pretty generic. What would you have used for a more dramatic ending sentence? Something like "Scientific inquiry should always maintain the utmost respect for the value of life, but at times, sacrifices must be made for truely remarkable discoveries." ?