The speaker asserts that the government should assume an active role to promote the development in science, not the resistance to impede its step. I fundamentally agree with the speaker. After all, the progress of the science is involved in the distinct innovation and dauntless exploration. Whereas, the speaker is fail to constrain the limitation of supporting the science which is the biggest flaw in the contention. As a fact generally admitted, excess of a normal stander of something always lead to adverse effect.
  The notion of the speaker has its own merit in many aspects. Science is always associated with one country's development closely in most time. One apt illustration to this point involve in the first industrial revolution. Since Watt discover the power of steam, his finding exerts in the whole manufacture factory which push the society forth in a large extent at the same time. On the contrary, in the other side of the world China observed the pedantry closed-door policy which leads its final downfall from a once great country to a foreigner's colony. During that time, the government see themselves as the centre of the world refusing any creativity thought which restrict the development in science rendering a country's defeat. Accordingly, science is the determinant elements for a country’s destiny. The progress of science determines the position of a country in the world to a certain extent.
  On the other hand are the similar result caused by the limitless development in science. If the government connives every demand in expediting the science forward, then our world will trap into darkness. Imagine the nuclear weapon is buried everyplace in the world, maybe someone is assembled in your yard how could we keep a peaceful mode to confront everyday life. Imagine the food we eat come from "a giant program" which the vegetable and meat we eat produce from the tree and animal which is 5 times bigger than the present size. It is hard not to think the environment of our body has changed somehow, though till now the criterion of GM food security has not came into existence. As a member of biology circle, hypothesis the change of our body is a reality then the whole circle will follow our transform to change. The influence is widely than we could assess. As a matter of fact government should formulate the restriction of the science growth in order to avoid the similar situation above.
  The speaker's notion is troubling in another aspect involved in allocation the funds of a country. If the government subsidizes the science without clear bond, the basic society problem will be put aside which may cause the conflict between the populace and government. The benefit of the people cannot be satisfied how they could have the capability to use the high-tech commodity. What's more the outcome of science unable to employ in the practice while the infrastructure is below standard. Thereby, we should make clear of the relationship between science and development. Science should be served to a country's development, at the same time it is a catalyst for the progress of a country. We should not put the science in an isolated position, so does the development. The crucial key is to transform the science as a force to promote a country forward.
  In the final analyze, we should confess that the science is the promotion of the development under the acknowledgement that limitless advancement of science will produce the adverse affect as well. Striking the balance between the science and development is a vital task for all of country.