The government should spend more money on medical research to protect citizens’ health rather than on protecting the environment. Do you agree or disagree?

Sample 1:

Some people think that the government should allocate more financial resources to medical research instead of environmental protection. I entirely disagree with this statement.

Both medical research activities and environmental protection are equally critical to human well-being. Throughout history, we have had to cope with countless consequences of environmental damage, some of which even threatened the survival of whole communities. We have also been struggling to combat diseases that could cripple the medical systems of entire countries. The peril that people face from those threats cannot be compared with one another by any measures; if they were to be addressed, tremendous government funding would be needed.

Furthermore, preserving the environment is a necessary part of protecting human health. It is true that funding medical research activities is the best way to cure the many serious diseases that are now causing so many problems all over the world, such as Covid-19. However, it is flawed to use this reason to downplay the significance of environmental protection and the need for government funding. In reality, we are facing many other severe health crises that arise from environmental pollution. For example, high levels of air and water contamination are leading to the increased number of cancer cases and deaths. Extreme weather conditions caused by global warming are also among the greatest drivers behind the deterioration of public health.

In conclusion, although medical research is certainly important and should be properly funded, I disagree that it should receive more money from the government than environmental protection.

Sample 2:

Government plays a crucial role in the management of our society. It has been reasoned that the state should invest heavily in the healthcare sector rather than the environmental sector. This essay will explore this topic and present a firm opinion.

To begin with, environmental protection has become an extremely contentious topic. Although it is obvious that humans are capable of damaging the natural world, the extent to which this takes place, and the lasting effect are very much contested. Governments should spend money on indirect methods of environmental protectionism such as educating the public and offering various incentives to those who strive to keep both artificial and natural spaces clean. Firstly, it is relatively inexpensive for political leaders to produce public service announcements on social media outlets such as Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter. Secondly, cash rebates, grocery store vouchers, and tax deductions can be utilized in order to persuade citizens to be “greener”.

Next, a similar case to the above could be made for the healthcare sector. People often do not feel comfortable with the government being involved with personal matters of health and wellness. The extent to which the government is involved in needs does not go further than increasing public health awareness and promoting healthy living. Politicians are neither business nor health professionals. Therefore, the research and development of health care products and services should be left to passionate entrepreneurs, medical practitioners, and scientific professionals. Recently, the world has witnessed a global pandemic, and several private sector companies and manufacturers have successfully produced millions of masks and thousands of life-saving ventilators. Although the government has helped to manage distribution, it has heavily relied on privately owned companies.

In conclusion, governments do serve a vital role in the management and maintenance of society; however, their duties need not go as far as to affect the lives of citizens in an overtly personal way. Governments should instead shift their focus to environmental matters. Perhaps in the future, the state will occupy a more limited role and allow the private sector to do what it does best.

Sample 3:

It is said that government funding should be spent on raising the general level of health instead of environmental preservation. However, I consider this a short-sighted proposal, since there is a direct relationship between health and the quality of the surrounding environment.

The reason why such a strategy will not work is that if the government somehow manages to improve people's health while neglecting the environment, the positive effects will sooner or later diminish. Potential hazards to human health caused by a polluted environment are numerous, including respiratory diseases from prolonged exposure to air pollution, gastrointestinal infections from the direct use of contaminated water, and skin problems from contact with hazardous waste. Such examples mean that even a healthy person will be likely to become ill if he is put in poorly sanitized surroundings. Even if he fully recovers, he will still be exposed to the same hazards if the environment is left unclean. This creates a vicious cycle in which the government keeps diverting resources towards the medical sector but to no avail.

To solve the problem at its root, what the government should do is to adopt environmental policies. Investment in environmental preservation is a sound approach as it not only helps the local residents but also people in other places, who might not directly reap the benefits of a clean environment. For example, Vietnamese people were affected by the Formosa marine environmental disaster, however, since green policies were introduced, sea water has now been cleansed, which leads to cleaner and fresher fish harvested and sold to consumers. This shows that even if consumers do not live near the newly cleansed environment, they will still benefit from it.

In conclusion, I believe it is wrong to allocate funds from environmental protection towards solely improving citizens' health.

Sample 4:

It is often argued that in order for a country to progress more funding should be allocated to medical research instead of environmental protection. While I agree that health research does need extra funding, this should not be at the expense of environmental preservation, which is also crucial to a country’s development.

The first benefit of funding for clinical research is that it can have enormous impacts on human health. This is because clinical experience can provide valuable feedback for improving the use of drugs. For example, the approval of a vaccine is based on a series of controlled clinical trials, often with a few hundred patients, but after approval, it can save millions of lives. Therefore, tracking clinical experience with the drug is important for determining the effectiveness in different populations. Conversely, without sufficient funding from the government, scientists could not carry out necessary research to develop new medicines and treatment guidelines for the public.

On the other hand, I also support government spending on the environment as only the government can pass laws to protect the environment and create regulations to enforce those laws. For example, the government can regulate wastewater management by requiring industries to emit only acceptable amounts of specific pollutants. Furthermore, another large-scale measure that only the government can do is promote green energy. They could invest more in new-energy technologies to find better alternatives to fossil fuels. By doing so, each country can reduce its global emissions from energy production.

In conclusion, while I agree that clinical research should receive substantial funding from the government because of its tremendous benefits for the community, I still feel that only large-scale funding from the government can address environmental issues.

Sample 5:

Many believe governments today should prioritise funding for medicine over environmental studies. In my opinion, learning more about the environment is one way to inform policy regarding climate change but more money should be directed towards medical research.

Those advocating for increased focus on the environment are eager to understand and counter the effects of climate change. There is arguably no greater threat facing the future of human civilisation than a degrading natural world. At the moment, billions are being poured into studies to understand how fast the polar ice caps are melting, what the impact will be, the damage to ecosystems, the interrelation between humans and these delicate ecosystems as well as the role of fossil fuels in aggravating climate change. There are wildly different theories about all these areas, and some think the best utilisation of research grants is to give scientists free rein to study and collaborate in the hope of coming to a stronger consensus, which can then shape international accords and domestic policy decisions.

Despite the force of the above argument, I believe health is a more tangible and pressing concern. There is constant disagreement from climate scientists, and it is unclear if increased funding would be a remedy or injury. Health research is unequivocally positive. Some of the many advances in health from the last several decades include increased understanding of mental illness, less invasive procedures for surgery, better vaccines, and countless new iterations of advanced medical equipment. These are all put into practice immediately and save or better lives in every country around the world. More money for research now would open up possibilities for new medical innovations that could involve experimentation with genetic modification and greater understanding of disease prevention.

In conclusion, making sense of climate change is important but nothing is more essential than one’s health. Governments ought to find ways to balance these competing interests but also be mindful of what most benefits their present citizenry.