Should the Main Aim of Science Be Improving Lives

The most important aim of science should be to improve people’s lives. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Annotated response

12 correction notes

Showing 12 correction notes.

Scientific research has shaped human civilization, and many that the primary aim of science should be to enhance people’s lives. In my opinion, while advancements in medicine, technology, and energy benefit society and of science, science should be pursued for knowledge, discovery, and a deeper understanding of the universe rather than human welfare.

One reason should not be limited to is that many discoveries arise from curiosity-driven research. Some of the most but later transformed the world. For example, quantum mechanics was the foundation for modern computing and telecommunications. If science were only focused on practical outcomes, such discoveries might never have emerged.

Additionally, scientific inquiry extends beyond human concerns to , ecosystems, and the universe. Understanding biodiversity and planetary systems is essential, even if it does not directly benefit people. For instance, deep-sea exploration has uncovered species with unique biological adaptations, expanding our knowledge of life’s complexity. Such research is valuable in its own right, regardless of to human well-being. Moreover, prioritising human welfare in science can lead to ethical dilemmas. While artificial intelligence and genetic engineering have the potential to improve lives, they also raise serious concerns about privacy, inequality, and misuse. For example, AI-driven surveillance threatens individual freedoms, illustrating how a human-centred focus can lead to harmful consequences.

In conclusion, while science undoubtedly improves human lives, its should not be confined to this purpose. Many discoveries result from pure exploration, and studying the natural world broadens our understanding of existence. Science should remain driven by curiosity and knowledge rather than .

Overall assessment

Why this response received Band 7.5

The response presents a clear, consistently maintained position with well-developed, relevantly exemplified main ideas, which is its strongest aspect. The main limitation is that the ethical-dilemma argument sits slightly awkwardly with the central thesis, and language control, though strong, occasionally shows minor imprecision rather than full flexibility.

IELTS criteria

How each score was decided

Task Response

7.5

The position is clear throughout, main ideas are developed with relevant examples, and the conclusion matches the stance, though the ethical-dilemma point is less directly tied to the question of science's primary aim.

Coherence and Cohesion

7.5

Paragraphing is logical with a clear progression and varied cohesive devices, although transitions such as 'Moreover' connect the ethics point somewhat loosely to the preceding argument.

Lexical Resource

7.5

Vocabulary is flexible and largely precise, with strong collocations like 'curiosity-driven research' and 'immediate application', alongside occasional less exact phrasing such as 'restricted to human welfare'.

Grammatical Range and Accuracy

7.5

A wide range of complex structures, including conditionals and relative clauses, is used with good control; errors are minor and do not impede meaning, but full flexibility is not consistently demonstrated.