science good or bad essay

• EssayBasics.com
• Pay For Essay
• Write My Essay
• Homework Writing Help
• Essay Editing Service
• Thesis Writing Help
• Write My College Essay
• Do My Essay
• Term Paper Writing Service
• Coursework Writing Service
• Write My Research Paper
• Assignment Writing Help
• Essay Writing Help
• Call Now! (USA) Login Order now
• EssayBasics.com Call Now! (USA) Order now
• Writing Guides

Is Science Good Or Bad? (Essay Sample)

Is science good or bad.

Since the beginning of time man has been on endless exploration of information and knowledge. Because of his hunger and thirst he has accumulated knowledge in many fields. During prehistoric times the desires and wants of man were less but when these cravings started to grow, he started to formulate new ideas. Because of science, man has made a remarkable improvement of life through inventions. Man has used the knowledge of science to understand how the universe works and how to do many things. It is evident that through science man has created modern treatment that has helped in curing various illnesses. Information has greatly improved and an example is the emergence of the internet. However, one can agree that man has done totally immoral things in the name of science; nevertheless it does not mean that science is bad overall, it only means that some bad people have used science for bad intentions. Science is a good thing as well as bad thing. This paper attempts to describe the things that make science good and the things that make science bad.

Because of scientific inventions man is living today a pleasant life. One can imagine, is it possible for humanity live on this world without, the internet, vehicles, television, electricity, medicine, mobile phones, and other millions of scientific inventions? Currently, because of science there is modern medicine which is used to treat and cure sickness. Sickness that could be fatal for mankind is curable because of science and hence the life of people is prolonged. No one can truly oppose the significance of science breakthroughs; however it safe to say that one can underrate the risks of scientific discoveries in the society. Scientific discoveries can have consequences and it is the obligation of man to search for solutions when problems arise instead of just assuming the concealed consequences. Science is a good thing because human is now able to irrigate and plow the land. Through science it is possible to study heavenly bodies like stars, planets, meteors, and comets. One can predict the weather today and this is helpful because people can take special precautions to avoid damage.

All good things can be said about science and its benefits to man however there are problems that may arise. As much as there is electricity, cars that use fuel, and factories, one tends to forget about global warming. Man desires nuclear energy without worrying about the nuclear refuse and hazardous consequences of nuclear radiation. Man wants to have wooden furniture, and paper without thinking about the depletion of natural resources. When all these is taken into consideration, it clear that wants have consequences and these need solutions. Other scientific discoveries can have hazardous results. A good example of this is the discovery of atoms. This field has led to invention of atomic bombs that has brought about the deaths of millions of people. This is evident when the first atomic bomb was used during the world war two on Japanese cities. Till this day, people are still suffering from the effects of nuclear radiation.

In conclusion, the question of whether science is good or bad can be a tricky one. One can list the whole day the benefits of science as well as the consequences. Man has used the knowledge of science to understand how the universe works and how to do many things. Scientific discoveries can have consequences and it is the obligation of man to search for solutions when problems arise instead of just assuming the concealed consequences. Scientific discoveries have made remarkable changes in our environment today.

July 1, 2021

If You Say ‘Science Is Right,’ You’re Wrong

It can’t supply absolute truths about the world, but it brings us steadily closer

By Naomi Oreskes

The COVID crisis has led many scientists to take up arms (or at least keyboards) to defend their enterprise—and to be sure, science needs defenders these days. But in their zeal to fight back against vaccine rejection and other forms of science denial, some scientists say things that just aren't true—and you can't build trust if the things you are saying are not trustworthy.

One popular move is to insist that science is right —full stop—and that once we discover the truth about the world, we are done. Anyone who denies such truths (they suggest) is stupid, ignorant or fatuous. Or, as Nobel Prize–winning physicist Steven Weinberg said, “Even though a scientific theory is in a sense a social consensus, it is unlike any other sort of consensus in that it is culture-free and permanent.” Well, no. Even a modest familiarity with the history of science offers many examples of matters that scientists thought they had resolved, only to discover that they needed to be reconsidered. Some familiar examples are Earth as the center of the universe, the absolute nature of time and space, the stability of continents, and the cause of infectious disease.

Science is a process of learning and discovery, and sometimes we learn that what we thought was right is wrong. Science can also be understood as an institution (or better, a set of institutions) that facilitates this work. To say that science is “true” or “permanent” is like saying that “marriage is permanent.” At best, it's a bit off-key. Marriage today is very different from what it was in the 16th or 18th century, and so are most of our “laws” of nature.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Some conclusions are so well established we may feel confident we won't be revisiting them. I can't think of anyone I know who thinks we will be questioning the laws of thermodynamics any time soon. But physicists at the start of the 20th century, just before the discovery of quantum mechanics and relativity, didn't think they were about to rethink their field's foundations, either.

Another popular move is to say scientific findings are true because scientists use “the scientific method.” But we can never actually agree on what that method is. Some will say it is empiricism: observation and description of the world. Others will say it is the experimental method: the use of experience and experiment to test hypotheses. (This is cast sometimes as the hypothetico-deductive method, in which the experiment must be framed as a deduction from theory, and sometimes as falsification, where the point of observation and experiment is to refute theories, not to confirm them.) Recently a prominent scientist claimed the scientific method was to avoid fooling oneself into thinking something is true that is not, and vice versa.

Each of these views has its merits, but if the claim is that any one of these is the scientific method, then they all fail. History and philosophy have shown that the idea of a singular scientific method is, well, unscientific. In point of fact, the methods of science have varied between disciplines and across time. Many scientific practices, particularly statistical tests of significance, have been developed with the idea of avoiding wishful thinking and self-deception, but that hardly constitutes “the scientific method.” Scientists have bitterly argued about which methods are the best, and, as we all know, bitter arguments rarely get resolved.

In my view, the biggest mistake scientists make is to claim that this is all somehow simple and therefore to imply that anyone who doesn't get it is a dunce. Science is not simple, and neither is the natural world; therein lies the challenge of science communication. What we do is both hard and, often, hard to explain. Our efforts to understand and characterize the natural world are just that: efforts. Because we're human, we often fall flat. The good news is that when that happens, we pick ourselves up, brush ourselves off, and get back to work. That's no different from professional skiers who wipe out in major races or inventors whose early aspirations go bust. Understanding the beautiful, complex world we live in, and using that knowledge to do useful things, is both its own reward and why taxpayers should be happy to fund research.

Scientific theories are not perfect replicas of reality, but we have good reason to believe that they capture significant elements of it. And experience reminds us that when we ignore reality, it sooner or later comes back to bite us.

Science Interviews

• Earth Science
• Engineering

Science: For good or bad?

Interview with , part of the show scrutinizing science, bonsai tree.

Science is usually touted as a good thing, but could there be a dark side? Graihagh Jackson debated this with Tom Ziessen... 

Tom - It becomes quite obvious as to 'why science?' when you look back at at all the advances that have happened.

So I'm Tom Zeissan. I am in the Engaging Science team at the Wellcome Trust.

Graihagh - I was interested in talking to Tom about Wellcome because, well, it provides science funding for thousands of people across the world. It's not a government body, it's a charity and thus has no obligations to do so. Why then does it? Well it starts with a chap called Sir Henry Wellcome...

Tom - He was an American marketeer; he was born in the mid-west and from an early age was trying to sell products to friends and family. He started out selling invisible ink, I think, was his first thing...

Graihagh - Invisible ink!

Tom - Invisible ink which was, just basically, lemon juice - I think he was sixteen when he started that.

He came over to the UK in the 1880s to found the Wellcome Foundation, and Henry Wellcome was always very interested in the arts and science of healing through the ages.

Henry died in 1936 and in his Will he set up the Wellcome Trust.

Graihagh - Because I think what's quite different about Wellcome is that most people get their funding from big research bodies from the government so, EPSRC, STFC, whereas Wellcome sits in this unusual sort of framework?

Tom - Yes, that's right. So we are a very large funder of research that's non-government - we're independent; we're not unique in that respect. But our funding supports, currently, over fourteen thousand people in more than seventy countries.

Graihagh - And I suppose that brings me onto my next question. I wonder - why science? -  why should science be put on a pedestal among all the other things that this money could be used for?

Tom - Actually, Wellcome Trust is not just interested in science. We're interested in all kinds of research related to health and wellbeing but, coming back to your question of: why do we place science as such an important part of what we do - it's because we think that science is a great way of giving us insights into the way the world works, the way we work. It becomes quite obvious as to 'why science?' when you look back at all the advances that have happened since 1936, or since the sort of scientific revolution and the improvements that's made to health and wellbeing.

Graihagh - But arguably it's not always been used for good things. I'm thinking the haber bosch process was used by the Nazi's as the poisonous gas in the holocaust, and then there's nuclear weapons. You've painted a very rosy picture of the use of science there.

Tom - Uh, yes. I mean, I think anything can be useful for bad purposes as well as for good purposes. That's not really a problem with science, that's really a problem with humanity and I don't think science is a force for good or evil. It's a way of understanding the world, understanding of what potential there is there but, hopefully, the majority of uses for it are beneficial.

Graihagh - I suppose the other side of this is that science has enabled populations to grow, it's enabled us to develop cars, which then produce lots of greenhouse gases. And I read this great quote that "man has survived millennia without science but may not survive a mere two centuries of science." With all these problems we're in some ways creating for ourselves, if that makes sense?

Tom - It does make sense. I think it's a very pessimistic view of the world but there's no question that there are problems related to scientific developments; there are more people around; they're living longer and using more resources. They're also happier, healthier and able to enjoy lives that wouldn't have been possible prior to science.

Graihagh - The future of science looks to be an interesting place. In the time that the Naked Scientists have been around, we've seen the advent of global warming and accelerated destruction of our natural world...

David Attenborough - This loss not only diminishes the beauty and diversity of the natural world, it also puts our own future in jeopardy.

Graihagh - And 3D printed guns...

So in this case what's happening is that you're downloading a digital file that defines this object - in this case a gun. You send that to a 3D printer which literally builds it up until you end up with a gun.

Graihagh - But also a new age of physics...

We have discovered a new particle, a boson. Most probably a Higgs boson but we have to find out which kind of Higgs Boson this is - what are its properties and where do they point to?

Ladies and gentleman... we have detected gravitational waves. We did it!

Graihagh - That only leads me to question - what next for science? Only time will tell...

• Previous Why cannabis gets you stoned
• Next Is social media changing journalism?

Related Content

Science and star wars, the perfect christmas dinner, why is laughter contagious, titans of science: martin rees, music lighting up the pleasure zone, add a comment, support us, forum discussions.

• Skip to primary navigation
• Skip to main content
• Skip to primary sidebar
• Skip to footer

Understanding Science

How science REALLY works...

• Understanding Science 101
• Misconceptions

Moral judgments, aesthetic judgments, decisions about applications of science, and conclusions about the supernatural are outside the realm of science.

Misconception:  Science contradicts the existence of God.

Correction:  Science cannot support or contradict the existence of supernatural entities. It deals only with natural phenomena and explanations.  Read more about it.

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

Science is powerful. It has generated the knowledge that allows us to call a friend halfway around the world with a cell phone, vaccinate people against polio, build a skyscraper, and drive a car. And science helps us answer important questions like which areas might be hit by a tsunami after an earthquake, how the hole in the ozone layer formed, how we can protect our crops from pests, and who our evolutionary ancestors were. With such breadth, the reach of science might seem to be endless, but it is not. Science has definite limits.

Science doesn’t make moral judgments

When is euthanasia the right thing to do? What universal rights should humans have? Should other animals have any of those rights too? Questions like these are important, but scientific research will not answer them. Science can help us learn about the contexts that help humans flourish and which of our cognitive capabilities are shared by non-human animals. That knowledge can inform our opinions and decisions. But ultimately, individual people must make moral judgments. Science helps us describe how the world is , but it does not make any judgments about whether that state of affairs is right, wrong, good, or bad.

Science doesn’t make aesthetic judgments

Science can reveal the frequency of a G-flat and how our eyes relay information about color to our brains, but science cannot tell us whether a Beethoven symphony, a Kabuki performance, or a Jackson Pollock painting is beautiful or dreadful. Individuals make those decisions for themselves based on their own aesthetic criteria.

Science doesn’t tell you how to use scientific knowledge

Although scientists often care deeply about how their discoveries are used, science itself doesn’t indicate what should be done with scientific knowledge. Science, for example, can tell you how to recombine DNA in new ways, but it doesn’t specify whether you should use that knowledge to correct a genetic disease, develop a bruise-resistant apple, or construct a new bacterium. For almost any important scientific advance, one can imagine both positive and negative ways that knowledge could be used. Again, science helps us describe how the world is , and then we have to decide how to use that knowledge.

Take a sidetrip

To learn more about the different ways that humans have applied scientific knowledge, explore  What has science done for you lately?

Science doesn’t draw conclusions about supernatural explanations

Do gods exist? Do supernatural entities intervene in human affairs? These questions may be important, but science won’t help you answer them. Questions that deal with supernatural explanations are, by definition, beyond the realm of nature — and hence, also beyond the realm of what can be studied by science. For many, such questions are matters of personal faith and spirituality.

Read more about the natural and supernatural worlds in relation to science:

• What’s natural?
• The relationship between science and religion

Moral judgments, aesthetic judgments, decisions about applications of science, and conclusions about the supernatural are outside the realm of science, but that doesn’t mean that these realms are unimportant. In fact, domains such as ethics, aesthetics, and religion fundamentally influence human societies and how those societies interact with science. Neither are such domains unscholarly. In fact, topics like aesthetics, morality, and theology are actively studied by philosophers, historians, and other scholars. However, questions that arise within these domains generally cannot be resolved by science, although they can be informed by science.

Science in disguise

Science in sum

Subscribe to our newsletter

• The science flowchart
• Science stories
• Grade-level teaching guides
• Teaching resource database
• Journaling tool

The Value of Science: Is Science Predominantly Good or Bad? Essay Example

• Pages: 10 (2565 words)
• Published: November 15, 2017
• Type: Literature Analysis

Tolstoy, in his 1885 book, My Religion, said: “In vain do science and philosophy pose as the arbiters of the human mind, of which they are in fact only the servants. Religion has provided a conception of life, and science travels in the beaten path. Religion reveals the meaning of life, and science only applies this meaning to the course of circumstances” (Tolstoy, 2003).

Even though science cannot give us all the answers in life, it has still has a gigantic influence on our world.In recent history science has taken the forefront in the provision of human knowledge. Before this knowledge was gathered much differently and giant sectors of knowledge was in past times prescribed by the church. Scientific knowledge has been shunned continuously throughout history, scientists has been prosecuted and even executed for their radical beli

With the passing of time we have become more accustomed to scientific “truths’ about the world. Humans have begun to accept science as a provider of trusted, accurate knowledge.As this transformation of the acceptance of science has progressed the impact science has had on the world, to use a Newtonian analogy, has been gaining momentum and speed and its inertia has become immense.

The question now beckons what impact this scientific revolution has had on human kind. This impact has been universal and has had positive and negative effects for humans and nature alike. A rational question that one might ask is whether this impact has been positive or good if you look at science in its totality? Are we better off than we were before this revolution?Is science predominantly good or bad? This essay believes that it not as simpl

as merely stating that science has been good or bad for the world.

This essay will examine these questions and explain why it is difficult to make such a value judgment on science. First one must understand how the world sees science today and how this view has evolved. The next section will therefore be on the worldview of science. The subject explained above has an obvious value judgment imbedded within it seeing that the “goodness” or “badness” of cience will be examined. This moral judgment will be examined in the light of the moral philosophical areas such as Utilitarianism and Kantian ideas such as the Categorical Imperative. Following this a section will be devoted to the positive and negative sides of science.

Concluding the essay a defense of science will be given and an explanation why this essay believes that science is predominantly good. The world view of science There are some differing views of science available today.Two main groups stand out above the rest according to Kitcher (2003) namely the "scientific faith-full" who describes science as the search for objective knowledge and the apogee of human achievement. Then there are the “debunkers “who sees science as a giant instrument of oppression used by the powerful. Kitcher in his book, Science, Truth and Democracy, poses another view of science that he adheres to.

He perceives science as an artisan or a worker that can deliver something of value to the general community, but that is broadly responsive to critique and social standards.Examples of this type of science will be provided in the section below on the positive impact of science. Another interesting view of science is that

of Wilbur Zelinsky (1975:123). According to Zelinsky science in the past four hundred years has escalated to the position of the dominant religion. Among the lay population the word of the scientist is truth. With a mere formula provided by a Doctor or even better a Professor the truth of a matter can be prescribed to the masses.

He believes that this iconic view of science will not be able to hold on to its position for much longer though due to the negative influence it has on the world.One of the reasons he states for this belief is that scientific revelations can bring wondrous achievements, but the side- and after effects are many a time not worth the gains. He also feels that science does not answer some of the most fundamental questions in life. Furthermore he states that even in this “Golden Age” of science we are still faced with some of the old festering problems (Zelinsky, 1975:129). Silvia Manzo (2006), in an essay about the views of Francis Bacon on science, describes science as a new type of power that has developed some quarrels between “ancients” and “moderns” over authority.

According to Manzo, Bacon believed that science: “did not provide for the independent judgment of men”. C. W. Mills also see a social problem within science and describes science as: “the wasteful absurdities of capitalism” (Mills, 1963: 540). There are many other views of science, which falls outside the scope of this essay.

One should note that there have been many criticisms by influential thinkers on science and the way science is done. The question whether science is good or bad is therefore an important

one. We will see if the criticism can be substantiated by a claim that science is bad.Morality of science Moral philosophy is a giant subsection of philosophy that can help us to put the question of the value of science into perspective. Moral philosophy according to Socrates tells us how we ought to live and why. Some of the basic ideas of morality are that we should not use people as means to an end and that we should look at the benefits of a decision in deciding its ‘rightness’.

There are many ideas in the fields of moral philosophy and also many conflicting ideas. This essay will briefly look at the utilitarian theory of Bentham and Mill and also at some of Kant’s ideas on morality.To understand utilitarianism one must understand the principles that the theory is built upon. Firstly the ‘correctness’ of actions should be judged exclusively on their consequences and nothing else. Secondly happiness or unhappiness as consequence is the only important thing. Thirdly happiness counts equally among people.

Therefore the consequences of science would be very important according to utilitarianism if one were to judge whether science is good or bad. The next section of this essay will therefore look at some of the negative (bringing unhappiness) and positive (bringing happiness) consequences of science.It is questionable whether the consequences are the only thing that matter and utilitarianism has received many attacks on this point. Still there are many followers of utilitarianism through the years. Utilitarianism also provides a practical way of analyzing the science problem that this essay tries to analyze (Rachels & Rachels, 2007:100-103). The next section of moral philosophy that will

be incorporated is that of Kant’s Categorical Imperative.

According to this theory there are certain rules that you ought to follow, period. Your own wants and desires are not important. An example Kant gives is that you should never lie.Kant phrases the Categorical Imperative thusly: Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law. This idea binds rational agents to certain rules no matter the situation. This according to Kant will create a fair and moral world.

The decision Harry Truman had to make regarding the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the Second World War would have been wrong according to the Categorical Imperative. Truman argued that the bomb was the best option available to him to end the war (Rachels & Rachels, 2007:120-129).A further idea of Kant that deserves mentioning is his later formulation of the Categorical Imperative namely: Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as an end and never as a means only. Kant believed that the value of humans is more than anything else seeing that humans have desires and goals and also intrinsic worth. This leads Kant to the conclusion that humans, as rational beings, should always be treated as an end in themselves. If one accepts these theories of Kant then science has lead the world astray.

Examples of this will be covered in the next section of this essay. Rachels & Rachels, 2007:120-129). Positive impact of science Science has provided us with some truths about the world that has been a mystery to our ancestors. Some

of these truths have replaced old prejudices and superstitions.

These ideas has enlightened the human race and allowed us to live fuller, longer, saver lives and to become as Kitcher (2003:3) says: “more fully human”. The aim of this side of science is to provide the world with unbiased, but still morally based, knowledge. As explained above Kitcher uses a metaphor of science as an artisan. Some examples of this follow.The Human Genome Project is a good example where many countries have worked together and sponsored scientific enquiry into the molecular structure of DNA.

The goal of this project is to provide pivotal information for future biologists about human genes. These new findings can also advance biotechnology and better the human species and this aspect of the project interests’ economists and politicians. There could however also be a negative side to this argument which will be discussed in the next section. Our space exploration programs are also an example of the achievement of science.Scientific ideas have here been used to help man reach the frontiers of space. There are a immesurable amount of examples of the accomplishments of science though and most of these has positive and negative side- and after effects.

As one can see there are many cases where science has improved the happiness of people all across the world as the utilitarian’s would have wanted it. Negative impact of Science Poincar (2007:12) believes that science cannot bring us happiness, but without science man will be unhappier. He feels that once humans have a taste of science we are unable to let it go.Aristotle said: “We often know how cruel the truth is, and we wonder

whether illusion is not more consoling, yea, even more bracing, for illusion it is which gives confidence.

Science has the goal to provide truths of the world and once we know them we cannot take them back or as Poincar say live without them. We are therefore stuck with science according to this idea and unfortunately not all scientific truths have had positive outcomes. Sometimes the greatest ideas can be misused such as that of Einstein when some of his ideas were used to destroy Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear bombs.It is difficult even to say whether this can be classified as the wrong decision as we have seen in the section on morality. Also the application of science in negative ways is not necessarily a bad aspect of science, but misuse of technology. This aspect will be further discussed in the next section.

Still science can clearly also show us a monstrous side. The objective search for knowledge may and have lead to atrocities in human history. Think of cases as the experiments in Nazi death camps which literally went as far as torturing people in the name of science.So called “pure science” is science that exists outside the realm of political, moral and religious values. Many believe that the idea that science is bound by social and moral obligations is a farce (Kitcher 2003:4-5). Another example of where science has damaged the planet is that of nuclear waste dumping.

Kristin Shrader-Frechette (1996) from the Notre Dame University has highlighted the damage nuclear waste has caused the planet in her essay: Science versus Educated Guessing: Risk Assessment, Nuclear Waste, and Public Policy.She explains the case of the

dumping of nuclear waste in the Yucca Mountain region and the decisions surrounding this by the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences. Shrader-Frechette has been studying the impact nuclear science has had socially and what the ethical issues are behind these sciences (Longino, 1997:176).

The example stated above of the Human Genome Project will even have a negative side according to Kitcher (2003:5-6).He believes that the advancement of genetics will enable some people to advance their genes and others too lag behind and be discriminated against for instance by insurance companies who will have their genetic information. Defense of science To list all the examples of the achievements of science and how it bettered or worsened the lives of humans would be superfluous and nearly impossible.

Still it is important to note that the world has had some dramatic changes owed to science. Some philosophers such as Kitcher (2003:8) believe that there should be a divide between science and technology.Science provides us with information and the application of that information ensue through technology. It could therefore be argued that it is not science that is bad, but the application of scientific knowledge in bad ways. The Nazi’s example escapes this defense, but in that specific case one can argue that science has not been bound by morality and should be. Conclusion There are clearly more to the question of whether science is predominantly good or bad than weighing the positive and negative outcomes of science against each other.

Science has been misused in the past and the world has felt the effects of this. This essay agrees with Poincar in his view that once

we have started to unlock the secrets of the world using science and felt the power it holds we cannot return to a world without it. People are today living longer. Many diseases have been overcome; humans are reaching targets never before imagined. There have been many negative repercussions as well as we have seen. Still this essay has an optimistic outlook on science.

There are abusers of most things in this world and science has not escaped the grasps of misuse through the years.Institutes such as the National Academy of Science helps to keep science on a moral responsive path and thereby underpins the beast that could emerge if “pure” science were allowed free reigns. We should value science for the sake of science and not use it as a means to an end, but as an end in itself. This line of thought follows the Kantian Categorical Imperative. This end is a better understanding of our world and this essay believes that science is working towards this end. Therefore the answer to the question of whether science is predominantly good or bad is that science is predominantly good.

Bibliography

• Kitcher, P. 2003. Science, Truth, and Democracy. 1st edition.
• Whasington: Oxford University Press US. Longino, H. E. 1997.
• Comments on Science and Social Responsibility: A Role for Philosophy of Science?. Philosophy of Science, 64(Supplement): n. p. Manzo, S.
• 2006. Francis Bacon: Freedom, Authority and Science. British Journal for the History of Philosophy, 14(2): 245-273. Mills, C. W.
• 1963. Power, Politics and People. 1st edition. New York: Ballantine Books.
• Poincar, H. 2007. The Value of Science. 1st edition. New York: Cosimo, Inc. Rachels, J.
• Restivo, S. 1988. Modern Science as a Social Problem. Social Problems, 35(3): 123-143. Shrader-Frechette, K.
• 1996. Science versus Educated Guessing: Risk Assessment, Nuclear Waste, and Public Policy. BioScience, 46(7): 488-489. Tolstoy, L.
• N. 2003. My Religion. 1st edition. London: Kessinger Publishing.
• Zelinsky, S. 1975. The Demigod's Dilemma. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 65(2): 488-489.
• Hacking into Harvard Essay Example
• Principles Of Business Ethics Persuasive Essay Example
• Impact and Effects of Social Darwinism Essay Example
• History of C.V. C.V. Healthcare Corporation Essay Example
• Participant observation in terms of ethics access reactivity Essay Example
• Islamic Worldview And Conventional Worldview Comparison Theology Essay Example
• Organisation Primark Essay Example
• Truth alone Triumphs Essay Example
• Ethics Essay Example
• Procedural Equality Essay Example
• Utilitarianism: Ethics and Contemporary Organizational Communication Essay Example
• Ultimate Norm of Morality Essay Example
• Position Paper Essay Example
• Flatliners Essay Example
• A to the P Essay Example
• Values of Life essays
• Ethical dilemma essays
• Normative Ethics essays
• Virtue Ethics essays
• Belief essays
• Deontology essays
• Moral essays
• Virtue essays
• Work Ethic essays
• Animals essays
• Charles Darwin essays
• Agriculture essays
• Archaeology essays
• Moon essays
• Space Exploration essays
• Universe essays
• Birds essays
• Horse essays
• Bear essays
• Butterfly essays
• Dolphin essays
• Monkey essays
• Tiger essays
• Whale essays
• Lion essays
• Elephant essays
• Mythology essays
• Time Travel essays
• Discovery essays
• Thomas Edison essays
• Linguistics essays
• Journal essays
• Chemistry essays
• Biology essays
• Physics essays
• Seismology essays
• Reaction Rate essays
• Roman Numerals essays
• Scientific Method essays
• Mineralogy essays
• Plate Tectonics essays
• Logic essays
• Genetics essays
• Albert einstein essays
• Stars essays
• Venus essays
• Mars essays
• Evolution essays

Haven't found what you were looking for?

Search for samples, answers to your questions and flashcards.

• Enter your topic/question
• Receive an explanation
• Ask one question at a time
• Enter a specific assignment topic
• Aim at least 500 characters
• a topic sentence that states the main or controlling idea
• supporting sentences to explain and develop the point you’re making
• evidence from your reading or an example from the subject area that supports your point
• analysis of the implication/significance/impact of the evidence finished off with a critical conclusion you have drawn from the evidence.

Unfortunately copying the content is not possible

Tell us your email address and we’ll send this sample there..

By continuing, you agree to our Terms and Conditions .

Home — Essay Samples — Science — GMO — Gmo Good Or Bad

Gmo Good Or Bad

• Categories: GMO

About this sample

Words: 557 |

Published: Mar 14, 2024

Words: 557 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

• Expert in: Science

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 727 words

6 pages / 2582 words

2 pages / 746 words

1 pages / 466 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on GMO

In today's fast-paced and convenience-driven society, the definition of "food" has become increasingly blurred. With the rise of processed, packaged, and fast foods, many people have lost touch with the true essence of what food [...]

In a world where the intersection of science and food production is becoming increasingly complex, the debate surrounding the labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has ignited a fervent discussion among consumers, [...]

The debate over the labeling of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) has gained significant attention. GMO labeling refers to the requirement of indicating on food packaging whether the product contains genetically engineered [...]

GMO effects on the environment have become a subject of intense debate and scrutiny in recent years. Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) have revolutionized agriculture by altering the genetic makeup of crops to enhance their [...]

As we wrap up our exploration of GMOs, it becomes clear that this technology holds immense promise for sustainable agriculture, food security, and environmental stewardship. By embracing genetic modification responsibly, we can [...]

Think back to the last meal you had; now think about how much of that food you consumed was genetically modified (GM). About 80% of today’s processed food contains genetically modified organisms, otherwise known as GMO’s. [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

• Reference Manager
• Simple TEXT file

People also looked at

Opinion article, the good, the bad and the ugly science: examples from the marine science arena.

• Department of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA

The terms “good science,” “bad science,” and especially “sound science” are frequently used in the policy arena. Most often, this is so parties with interests (usually economic) in the outcome of a political decision can promote certain results and attempt to discredit others. It has been argued that the terms “sound science” and “junk science” have been appropriated by various industries, such as the oil and gas industry and the tobacco industry. “Junk science” is the term used to tar scientific studies that disagree with positions favorable to the industry ( Mooney, 2004 , 2006 ; Oreskes and Conway, 2011 ; Macilwain, 2014 ). But can science actually be “good” or “bad”?

Science is a process. It's the act of taking observations made in the natural world to test hypotheses, preferably in a rigorous, repeatable way. The tested hypotheses are then rejected if they fall short, rather than accepted if the data are compatible, and the results are ultimately critically reviewed by the scientific community. Concepts that work survive, whereas those that do not fit the observed data die off. Eventually, concepts that survive the frequent and repeated application of enormous amounts of observational data become scientific theory. Such theories become as close to scientific fact as is possible—nothing can be proved absolutely. This process holds for social science as much as for chemistry, physics or biology: it does not matter if the data come from surveys or observational data from humans. A study either follows this protocol or it does not. Put simply, it is science or it isn't science.

That said, what is sometimes referred to as “bad science” is the use of a bad experimental design. This is typically a set-up that has not accounted for confounding variables, so the hypothesis has not been appropriately tested and the inferences based upon this work are flawed and incorrect. These flaws may include the use of an inappropriate sample size or time frame. Use of selective data is another problem, where data that don't fit are simply left out of statistical analyses as “outliers.” In short, “bad science” is a study that does not follow the scientific process. It could also be used to describe studies that have flaws and limitations that are not highlighted by researchers. The term “bad science” has also been applied to inappropriate interpretations of the results. The reason for this, mentioned above, is that science never proves anything. Thus personal opinions can color interpretations of what data actually mean. This is where most of the debate in the scientific community really lies. We may all agree that a given hypothesis has not yet been invalidated, but what if alternative explanations for the observed data are possible? Or, as noted above, there might be limitations and caveats in particular study—for example an ex situ experimental study on a small sample of a single species in an aquarium produces interesting results, but to ignore these limitations and extrapolate these results to make conclusions about multiple species in multiple ecosystems in the wild over-reaches the real limits of the study in question (see Parsons et al., 2008 for an example related to captive cetacean studies and the impacts underwater sound). However, when scientific studies are interpreted beyond hyperbole, and are deliberately misinterpreted to fit a particular world view or to favor special interests, this is when science is no longer just “bad,” but it becomes ugly.

Government decisions regarding the marine environment are typically required to be based on the “best available science.” The typical tools for aiding decision-making are environmental impact assessments (EIAs). However, such EIAs are typically restricted by a timeline and a tight budget, and frequently focus on simple species descriptions and habitat reviews. Conversely the marine environment is logistically difficult, complex, and expensive to study ( Norse and Crowder, 2005 ). It is frequently the case that the scientific content of an EIA, due to these limitations, is insufficient to fully ascertain the impacts of a project. However, the EIA's conclusions often do not acknowledge the deficiencies of the assessment. This “bad” science can, moreover, turn ugly if conclusions of an EIA go contrary to the findings of the actual assessment in order to allow a project to get approval. After all, if an environmental consultant says a project cannot go ahead they may risk not being awarded any further contracts. Thus there is a major financial incentive to not highlight an EIA's limitations, or even to give the client the determination that they desire, contrary to the data gathered in the assessment ( Wright et al., 2013a ). It should be noted that the data in an EIA might actually be very rigorously gathered in an appropriate scientific manner, and thus technically be “good science.” However, when the interpretation of the science is not based on the data, but rather on the interests of industry, individuals or politics, is not longer “good science.” In fact, it ceases to be science at all.

One high-profile example of inappropriate interpretation of marine science data was research conducted to assess the impacts of the Acoustic Thermometry of the Ocean Climate (ATOC) program. This project was designed to detect changes in oceanic temperatures using a high-intensity, low-frequency sound source. After expressions of concern by scientists and NGOs about the possible impact of the high-intensity sound to be used in the project, a field test was conducted in 1991. While the sound source was operating, researchers acoustically monitored nearly 5000 km 2 area of ocean. They found that acoustic detections of long-finned pilot whales ( Globicephala melas ) and sperm whales ( Physeter macrocephalus ) were substantially lower when the sound source was operating than when it was not ( Bowles et al., 1994 ). Despite the results of this test, the ATOC project continued, albeit with a quieter (~20 dB) source level than used in the test. Several environmental NGOs subsequently launched a court case, which was settled out of court, but it did lead to a program of marine mammal-oriented studies ( McCarthy, 2004 ; Oreskes, 2004 , 2014 ). Several of these studies noted significant changes in the behavior/distribution of whales around the ATOC sound source ( Calambokidis, 1998 ; Frankel and Clark, 1998 , 2000 , 2002 ). A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) was released in 2000, which concluded that there was no short- or long-term biologically significant impact from the sound source, a stance that was criticized in a US National Research Council report ( National Research Council, 2003 ). The critique stated that the studies relied on by the DEIS were insufficient to adequately test whether there had, or had not, been short- or long-term effects on marine mammals, nor the biological significance of any such effects if they occurred ( National Research Council, 2003 ). That is to say, the hypotheses tested in the various marine mammal studies were not consistent with the conclusions drawn. Sadly, this is a common situation with many EIAs which have a seemingly supportive case for an impact in the part of the document that presents scientific data, but the conclusion is that there is no significant impact irrespective of the science presented ( Wright et al., 2013a ).

Another second case study on the nature of science in the marine environmental realm is that of the impact of naval sonar on cetaceans. Many scientists were initially convinced that the main concern for injury to cetaceans from high-intensity noise was temporary or permanent deafness or threshold shifts (referred to as TTS and PTS, respectively). However other scientists were concerned that behavioral changes, such as surfacing too quickly, might lead to injury through “the bends”-like effects ( Jepson et al., 2003 ; Fernández et al., 2004 , 2005 ; Cox et al., 2006 ; and see review in Parsons et al., 2008 ). These behavioral effects could potentially occur at levels much lower than those which were known to cause TTS/PTS. The latter hypothesis was criticized by several as being “bad” or “junk science” (pers. obs.), possibly because the hypothesis did not fit with the then held assumptions about the impacts of sound on marine mammals. Another possibility is that accepting the hypothesis would support the implementation of a more precautionary management regime, with heavier restrictions on noise-producing activities. However, the hypothesis was subsequently tested. Beaked whales and other cetaceans were exposed to military sonar, and potentially problematic behavioral changes were observed ( Tyack et al., 2011 ). This was a good example of using the scientific method to investigate a problem. As a result, we know that there can be important impacts on cetaceans at levels of sound much lower than previously thought and management regimes can be adjusted accordingly. Prior to these experiments, many complained that the hypothesis whereby behavioral changes induced a “bends”-like effect was not “sound science” (pers. obs.). However, the fact that the majority now accept revised hypotheses that have been tested, and management recommendations are starting to be proposed based on the latest understanding of sound impacts, is an example of what one might consider “good science.”

This example leads us to another aspect of the scientific method: rejecting previously accepted hypotheses as additional data shows that these hypotheses are, in fact, false. If a scientist were to follow the scientific method, a “good” scientist's understanding of the environment changes as additional data are acquired, whereas a “bad” scientist sticks stubbornly to previously held beliefs despite being faced with data that suggest an alternative scenario. It is a basic tenant of scientific inquiry after all that hypotheses are rejected when not supported by data. Good scientists are willing to change their opinions quickly in the face of new evidence or in response to a good valid argument. However, opinions that are not based in data-tested hypotheses do not represent good or bad science; they are simply not scientific at all.

Sticking to an opinion or an idea despite evidence to the contrary is sadly quite common in the science community. One sees “scientists” who stubbornly resist new ideas and studies, especially those that contradict a paper that the “scientists” wrote or concepts that they have publicly supported, or even based their career on. But adapting to new evidence is a key criterion of the scientific method. When scientists stubbornly resist new evidence contrary to their opinion, it really is “bad science,” i.e., refusing to reject a hypothesis that has been shown to be false.

Combating bad science ideally should be done through scientific peer-review, as professional scientists should understand the intricacies of the scientific method, and in an ideal world this happens. However, reviewers with conflicts of interest are sadly too frequent. Moreover, any problems are exacerbated when science meets policy, or public opinion. Policy makers and the general public, who are not trained in the scientific method, may not understand the difference between “good” and “bad” science or recognize misrepresentations of science (see Wright et al., 2013b for further discussion). This is not helped by the fact that scientists that may be well-trained in the scientific method may not be trained in (or even very good at) the art of communication. Fortunately, some scientists forego research to become involved in policymaking and management, journalism, and/or teaching. However, there have been concerns that science journalism in traditional media has been in decline ( Brumfiel, 2009 ; Nature, 2009a , b ) with few newspapers employing journalists with a scientific background. The result is that articles on science often display a tenuous grip on the scientific method and the real implications of the results ( Rose and Parsons, in press ). Brunning (2014) provides a checklist to help the lay person to spot “bad science” (Table 1 ), whether it be in science-related articles, government reports or in EIAs (also recommended is McConway and Spiegelhalter, 2012 and www.badscience.net ).

Table 1. A “bad science” checklist .

Marine scientists should try to avoid the tainted terms “sound” or “junk” science as these terms have been co-opted by special interests and have now become somewhat tainted by association, as noted earlier. There can be “good science” or “bad science,” but arguably only because a project uses a scientific methodology in which the experimental design is well-thought out, potential confounding variables are addressed, conclusions are appropriate for the hypotheses that were tested and the data that were gathered, and caveats are expressed… or this is not the case. In short, science has been properly conducted or it has not been conducted. There is no middle ground. Then there are situations where lip service is often paid to “science” but actual scientific data have been willfully ignored because of dogma, special interest or politics. This is often the realm of purveyors of the terms “sound science” for studies that supports their agenda, and “junk science” for those that don't. But to paraphrase Yoda, there are studies where data has been collected in an appropriate scientific fashion and interpreted appropriately, and there those that have not, there is no in between.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Acknowledgments

We wish to thanks Amy Bauer for kindly editing draft versions of this manuscript and we are grateful for the useful comments of two reviewers.

Bowles, A. E., Smultea, M., Würsig, B., DeMaster, D. P., and Palka, D. (1994). The relative abundance and behaviour of marine mammals exposed to transmissions from the Heard Island Feasibility Test. J. Acoust. Soc. Am . 96, 2469–2484. doi: 10.1121/1.410120

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Brumfiel, G. (2009). Science journalism: supplanting the old media? Nature 458, 274–277. doi: 10.1038/458274a

Brunning, A. (2014). A Rough Guide to Spotting Bad Science . Available online at: http://www.compoundchem.com/2014/04/02/a-rough-guide-to-spotting-bad-science .

Calambokidis, J. (1998). “Effects of the ATOC sound source on the distribution of marine mammals observerved from aerial surveys off central California,” in World Marine Mammal Conference, Monte Carlo, Monaco, 20–24th January 1998 , (Monte Carlo: European Cetacean Society and Society for Marine Mammalogy), 22.

Cox, T. M., Ragen, T. J., Read, A. J., Vos, E., Baird, R. W., Balcomb, K., et al. (2006). Understanding the impacts of anthropogenic sound on beaked whales. J. Cetacean Res. Manage . 7, 177–187.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Fernández, A., Arbelo, M., Deaville, R., Patterson, I. A. P., Castro, P., Baker, J. R., et al. (2004). Whales, sonar and decompression sickness. Nature 428, 1–2. doi: 10.1038/nature02528a

Fernández, A., Edwards, J. F., Rodríguez, F., Espinosa de los Monteros, A., Herráez, P., Castro, P., et al. (2005). “Gas and Fat Embolic Syndrome” involving a mass stranding of beaked whales (Family Ziphiidae) exposed to anthropogenic sonar signals. Vet. Pathol . 42, 446–457. doi: 10.1354/vp.42-4-446

Frankel, A. D., and Clark, C. W. (1998). Results of low-frequency playback of M-sequence noise to humpback whales, Megaptera novaeangliae, in Hawaii. Can. J. Zool . 76, 521–535.

Google Scholar

Frankel, A. D., and Clark, C. W. (2000). Behavioral responses of humpback whales to full-scale ATOC signals. J. Acoust. Soc. Am . 108, 1–8. doi: 10.1121/1.1289668

Frankel, A. D., and Clark, C. W. (2002). ATOC and other factors affecting distribution and abundance of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) off the north shore of Kauai. Mar. Mamm. Sci . 18, 644–662. doi: 10.1111/j.1748-7692.2002.tb01064.x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Henderson, B. (2005). Open Letter to the Kansas School Board . Available online at: http://web.archive.org/web/20070407182624/http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

Jepson, P. D., Arbelo, M., Deaville, R., Patterson, I. A. P., Castro, P., Baker, J. R., et al. (2003). Gas-bubble lesions in stranded cetaceans: was sonar responsible for a spate of whale deaths after an Atlantic military exercise? Nature 425, 575–576. doi: 10.1038/425575a

Macilwain, C. (2014). Beware of the backroom deals in the name of ‘science’. Nature 508:289. doi: 10.1038/508289a

McCarthy, E. (2004). International Regulation of Underwater Sound: Establishing Rules and Standards to Address Ocean Noise Pollution . New York, NY: Springer.

McConway, K., and Spiegelhalter, D. (2012). Score and ignore. A radio listener's guide to ignoring health stories. Significance 9, 45–48. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-9713.2012.00611.x

Mooney, C. (2004). Beware ‘Sound Science.’ It's Doublespeak for Trouble . Retrieved from Washington Post.

Mooney, C. (2006). The Republican War on Science . New York, NY: Basic Books.

National Research Council, A. (2003). “Effects of noise on marine mammals,” in Ocean Noise and Marine Mammals , (Washington, DC: National Academies Press), 83–108.

Nature, A. (2009a). Filling the void. Nature 458:260. doi: 10.1038/458260a

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text

Nature, A. (2009b). Cheerleader or watchdog? Nature 459:1033. doi: 10.1038/4591033a

CrossRef Full Text

Norse, E., and Crowder, L. B. (2005). “Why marine conservation biology?,” in Marine Conservation Biology , eds E. Norse and L. B. Crowder, (Washington, DC: Island Press), 1–18.

Oreskes, N. (2004). Science and public policy: what's proof got to do with it? Environ. Sci. Policy 7, 69–383. doi: 10.1016/j.envsci.2004.06.002

Oreskes, N. (2014). “Changing the mission: from the cold war to climate change,” in Science and Technology in the Global Cold War , eds N. Oreskes and J. Krige (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press), 141–187.

Oreskes, N., and Conway, E. M. (2011). Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming . New York, NY: Bloomsbury Press.

Parsons, E. C. M., Dolman, S., Wright, A. J., Rose, N. A., and Burns, W. C. G. (2008). Navy sonar and cetaceans: just how much does the gun need to smoke before we act? Mar. Pollut. Bull . 56, 1248–1257. doi: 10.1016/j.marpolbul.2008.04.025

Rose, N. A., and Parsons, E. C. M. (in press). “Back off, man, I'm a scientist!,” in When Marine Conservation Science Meets Policy , Ocean & Coastal Management.

Tyack, P. L., Zimmer, W. M. X., Moretti, D., Southall, B. L., Claridge, D. E., Durban, J. W., et al. (2011). Beaked whales respond to simulated and actual navy sonar. PLoS ONE 6:e17009. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017009

Wright, A. J., Dolman, S. J., Jasny, M., Parsons, E. C. M., Schiedek, D., and Young, S. B. (2013a). Myth and momentum: a critique of environmental impact assessments. J. Environ. Prot . 4, 72–77. doi: 10.4236/jep.2013.48A2009

Wright, A. J., Parsons, E. C. M., Rose, N. A., and Witcomb-Vos, E. (2013b). The science-policy disconnect: language issues at the science-policy boundary. Environ. Pract . 15, 79–83. doi: 10.1017/S1466046612000506

Keywords: science, good science, bad science, junk science, sound science, policy making, science communication

Citation: Parsons ECM and Wright AJ (2015) The good, the bad and the ugly science: examples from the marine science arena. Front. Mar. Sci . 2 :33. doi: 10.3389/fmars.2015.00033

Received: 21 February 2015; Accepted: 18 May 2015; Published: 04 June 2015.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2015 Parsons and Wright. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: E. C. M. Parsons, [email protected]

Emery Evans

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Perfect Essay

What if I can’t write my essay?

Professional essay writer at your disposal.

Quality over quantity is a motto we at Essay Service support. We might not have as many paper writers as any other legitimate essay writer service, but our team is the cream-of-the-crop. On top of that, we hire writers based on their degrees, allowing us to expand the overall field speciality depth! Having this variation allows clients to buy essay and order any assignment that they could need from our fast paper writing service; just be sure to select the best person for your job!

Customer Reviews

Customer Reviews

First, you have to sign up, and then follow a simple 10-minute order process. In case you have any trouble signing up or completing the order, reach out to our 24/7 support team and they will resolve your concerns effectively.

Rebecca Geach

You are going to request writer Estevan Chikelu to work on your order. We will notify the writer and ask them to check your order details at their earliest convenience.

The writer might be currently busy with other orders, but if they are available, they will offer their bid for your job. If the writer is currently unable to take your order, you may select another one at any time.

Please place your order to request this writer

Can you write essays for free?

Sometimes our managers receive ambiguous questions from the site. At first, we did not know how to correctly respond to such requests, but we are progressing every day, so we have improved our support service. Our consultants will competently answer strange suggestions and recommend a different way to solve the problem.

The question of whether we can write a text for the user for free no longer surprises anyone from the team. For those who still do not know the answer, read the description of the online platform in more detail.

We love our job very much and are ready to write essays even for free. We want to help people and make their lives better, but if the team does not receive money, then their life will become very bad. Each work must be paid and specialists from the team also want to receive remuneration for their work. For our clients, we have created the most affordable prices so that a student can afford this service. But we cannot be left completely without a salary, because every author has needs for food, housing and recreation.

We hope that you will understand us and agree to such working conditions, and if not, then there are other agencies on the Internet that you can ask for such an option.

Finished Papers

Charita Davis

1(888)499-5521

1(888)814-4206

Customer Reviews

When shall I pay for the service taken up for the draft writing?

We value every paper writer working for us, therefore we ask our clients to put funds on their balance as proof of having payment capability. Would be a pity for our writers not to get fair pay. We also want to reassure our clients of receiving a quality paper, thus the funds are released from your balance only when you're 100% satisfied.

What if I’m unsatisfied with an essay your paper service delivers?

There are questions about essay writing services that students ask about pretty often. So we’ve decided to answer them in the form of an F.A.Q.

Is essay writing legitimate?

As writing is a legit service as long as you stick to a reliable company. For example, is a great example of a reliable essay company. Choose us if you’re looking for competent helpers who, at the same time, don’t charge an arm and a leg. Also, our essays are original, which helps avoid copyright-related troubles.

Are your essay writers real people?

Yes, all our writers of essays and other college and university research papers are real human writers. Everyone holds at least a Bachelor’s degree across a requested subject and boats proven essay writing experience. To prove that our writers are real, feel free to contact a writer we’ll assign to work on your order from your Customer area.

Is there any cheap essay help?

You can have a cheap essay writing service by either of the two methods. First, claim your first-order discount – 15%. And second, order more essays to become a part of the Loyalty Discount Club and save 5% off each order to spend the bonus funds on each next essay bought from us.

Can I reach out to my essay helper?

Contact your currently assigned essay writer from your Customer area. If you already have a favorite writer, request their ID on the order page, and we’ll assign the expert to work on your order in case they are available at the moment. Requesting a favorite writer is a free service.

Customer Reviews

Why do I have to pay upfront for you to write my essay?

Customer Reviews

Article Sample

• bee movie script
• hills like white elephants
• rosewood movie
• albert bandura
• young goodman brown

Team of Essay Writers

We hire a huge amount of professional essay writers to make sure that our essay service can deal with any subject, regardless of complexity. Place your order by filling in the form on our site, or contact our customer support agent requesting someone write my essay, and you'll get a quote.

Customer Reviews

Alexander Freeman

Finished Papers

Customer Reviews

• Our Listings
• Our Rentals
• Testimonials
• Tenant Portal

Order Number

Charita Davis

Jalan Zamrud Raya Ruko Permata Puri 1 Blok L1 No. 10, Kecamatan Cimanggis, Kota Depok, Jawa Barat 16452

Specifically, buying papers from us you can get 5%, 10%, or 15% discount.

Finished Papers

Customer Reviews

A standard essay helper is an expert we assign at no extra cost when your order is placed. Within minutes, after payment has been made, this type of writer takes on the job. A standard writer is the best option when you’re on a budget but the deadline isn’t burning. Within a couple of days, a new custom essay will be done for you from the ground up. Unique content, genuine research, spot-on APA/MLA formatting, and peerless grammar are guaranteed. Also, we’ll provide you with a free title page, bibliography, and plagiarism check. With a standard writer, you can count on a quality essay that will live up to all your expectations.

Final Paper