Many would argue that scientific research requires a degree of oversight from the relevant governmental authorities. In my opinion, properly handled, this is a sensible and necessary policy. What are the advantages and disadvantages of this?
Many suggest that scientific studies be supervised to some extent by governing bodies. Nonetheless, it is also argued that as long as this regulation is adequately operationalized, it is warranted for some rationales. Personally, though this policy is beneficial regarding the guaranteed levels of integrity and legitimacy, it also burdens the legal system with several technical problems.
Admittedly, governmental scrutiny helps guarantee that the process of experimentation is legitimate. Unarguably, some scientific laboratories may try to utilize experimental methods such as experimenting on endangered species or human bodies, which are regarded legally or morally unacceptable, to earn money quickly or serve criminal purposes. Indeed, since scientific advances are vital to the development of other domains namely healthcare and environmental protection, it is the duty of governments to ensure the highest levels of integrity. Thus, should scientific studies be overseen by governments, misconduct and illegal acts will be minimized.
Nevertheless, the governmental control of scientific experimentation may beset policymakers. This is due to the fact that to regulate the process of scientific research, policymakers are supposed to impose legitimate requirements on the research. However, as scientific fields are rapidly emerging and even outpace the legal structure governing their operation, rules and regulations quickly become obsolete, which, in turn, pressurizes relevant governmental authorities to revise to accommodate the changes. Therefore, it may be inherently problematic and time-consuming for policymakers to redress their legal regulations constantly.
In conclusion, authorities overseeing laboratory experiments may benefit societies as such studies’ integrity and validity are likely ensured, but for the governments complicates the adjustment of policies. (260 words)
Piggy Pink In my opinion, properly handled,
Are you sure you've quoted that part of the question correctly?
Sorry, it should be " if properly handled "
Many suggest that scientific studies be supervised to some extent by governing bodies. Nonetheless, it is also argued that as long as this regulation is adequately operationalized, it is warranted for some rationales. Personally, though this policy is beneficial regarding the guaranteed levels of integrity and legitimacy, it also burdens the legal system with several technical problems.
Admittedly, governmental scrutiny helps guarantee that the process of experimentation is legitimate. Unarguably, some
-------------
The parts highlighted above are worded in an unnatural manner. Most of the rest of your text is vague. You simply need to write one paragraph about the advantages of governmental oversight and one paragraph about the drawbacks. Let's first make a couple of lists for those paragraphs.
Advantages of government oversight:
- stops illegal practices.
- maintains standards of scientific integrity and safety
-
Drawbacks of government oversight:
- outdated rules and unnecessary bureaucracy may hinder research.
- Costs money.
-
If you can think of one more point for each list add those. After that, start writing the body paragraphs. You can use the following topic sentences if you like.
On the one hand, governmental oversight of scientific research has certain advantages. To start with, ...
On the other hand, there are also drawbacks associated with any oversight of scientific research and experimentation by the government. First, ...
Hi, thanks a lot for your comment. I just revised it and hope it will look better:
Many suggest that scientific studies be supervised to some extent by governing bodies. Nonetheless, it is also argued that as long as this regulation is effectively enforced, it is would be beneficial. Personally, though this policy can help prevent unlawful research and ensure public safety, it also burdens the legal system with several technical problems.
One of the cogent merits of governmental scrutiny is that it allows governing agencies to preclude illegal practices. For example, some laboratories will try to utilize illegitimate experimental methods such as experimenting on endangered species and human bodies without consent. Thus, a regulatory environment will possibly minimize the risk of such malpractice. A further benefit is a governmental oversight can guarantee the safety of citizens. Since scientific advances are crucial to many core domains, especially healthcare and medicine, governments are indeed required to supervise scientific studies to ensure the safety of society. For example, were the government not to oversee the development of vaccines, some private laboratories may manufacture counterfeit vaccines to earn illegal money. This means the health public will be imperiled.
Nevertheless, there are certain drawbacks associated with governmental control, one of which is that it may beset policymakers. Undoubtedly, as scientific fields are rapidly emerging and even outpacing the legal structure, policymakers may need to redress obsolete legislations constantly to accommodate the changes, which is inherently problematic and time-consuming. Moreover, the oversight from the governing bodies is, to some extent, unenforceable. As some scientists may try to circumvent the regulations by moving to other nations which permit their experimentation. The migration of prominent researchers to a more hospitable and favorable environment to conduct studies related to embryonic stem cell perfectly exemplifies this.
In conclusion, though governments regulating scientific studies benefits themselves and societies in terms of the mitigation of illegal practices and the ensured public safety, it is disadvantageous for some reasons, namely legislative inertia and unenforceability. (315 words)
Those topic sentences are not general! I don't understand why you've decided to ignore the ones I suggested. 
Sorry, but I don't want to copy your sentences, so I just made my own. However, it seems that my sentences are not any better. Sorry for that. Here is the essay:
Many suggest that scientific studies be supervised to some extent by governing bodies. Nonetheless, it is also argued that as long as this regulation is effectively enforced, it is would be beneficial. Personally, though this policy can help prevent unlawful research and ensure public safety, it also burdens the legal system with several technical problems.
On the one hand, governmental oversight of scientific research has certain advantages. To start with, it allows governing agencies to preclude illegal practices. For example, some laboratories will try to utilize illegitimate experimental methods such as experimenting on endangered species and human bodies without consent. Thus, a regulatory environment will possibly minimize the risk of such malpractice. A further benefit is a governmental oversight can guarantee the safety of citizens. Since scientific advances are crucial to many core domains, especially healthcare and medicine, governments are indeed required to supervise scientific studies to ensure the safety of society. For example, were the government not to oversee the development of vaccines, some private laboratories may manufacture counterfeit vaccines to earn illegal money. This means the health public will be imperiled.
On the other hand, there are also drawbacks associated with any oversight of scientific research and experimentation by the government. First, it may beset policymakers. Undoubtedly, as scientific fields are rapidly emerging and even outpacing the legal structure, policymakers may need to redress obsolete legislations constantly to accommodate the changes, which is inherently problematic and time-consuming. Second, the oversight from the governing bodies is, to some extent, unenforceable. As some scientists may try to circumvent the regulations by moving to other nations which permit their experimentation. The migration of prominent researchers to a more hospitable and favorable environment to conduct studies related to embryonic stem cell perfectly exemplifies this.
In conclusion, though governments regulating scientific studies benefits themselves and societies in terms of the mitigation of illegal practices and the ensured public safety, it is disadvantageous for some reasons, namely legislative inertia and unenforceability.
[ 1] The field of scientific research has made incredible advances in recent times. However, there are concerns about what scientists should be allowed to do in their labs. Many suggest that scientific studies be supervised to some extent by governing bodies. [ 2] Nonetheless, it is also argued that as long as this regulation is effectively enforced, it is would be beneficial. Personally, Although this such a policy can [ 3] help regulate the research conducted, prevent unlawful research and ensure public safety, it also can cause burdens the legal system with several technical problems.
On the one hand, governmental oversight of scientific research has certain advantages. To start with, it allows governing agencies to preclude illegal practices. For example, some laboratories will try to utilize illegitimate experimental methods such as experimenting on endangered species and human bodies without consent. Thus, a regulatory environment will possibly minimize the risk of such malpractice. A further benefit is that governmental oversight can guarantee the ensure better adherence to safe practices. ty of citizens. Since scientific advances are crucial to many core domains, especially healthcare and medicine, governments are indeed required to supervise scientific studies to ensure the safety of society. For example, were the government not to oversee the development of vaccines, without supervision, some private laboratories may [ 4] manufacture counterfeit experiment on dangerous vaccines to earn illegal money. This means the and endanger public health. [ 5] public will be imperiled.
On the other hand, there are also drawbacks associated with any oversight of scientific research and experimentation by the government. First, it may beset policymakers. Undoubtedly, as scientific fields are rapidly emerging and even outpacing the strict legal obligations may deter research and drive scientists elsewhere. structure, policymakers may need to redress obsolete legislations constantly to accommodate the changes, which is inherently problematic and time-consuming. Second, the oversight from by the governing bodies can be costly .... ----------------------------------------------------
[ 1]: Present the topic and give some background.
[ 2]: That is clumsy and off topic.
[ 3]: Leave any specifics out of the introduction.
[ 4]: The question is specifically about research, not manufacture.
[ 5]: It’s “public health” not “health public”.