Scientists are responsible for the negative impact that are made by their discoveries Up to now, Scientists have made numerous contributions for the the peace of world and social development. They made a breakthrough for our world and found new technologies and discoveries which promote the innovation and to advance the social progress. But sometimes the new things discovered by scientists have the negative impact for society. A few people point out the scientists should take a responsibility for these negative impact. In my judgement, this is sheer nonsense. My reasons will be discussed blew. Firstly, government supports and subsidizes scientists to do research, sometimes demanding them. Scientists do not have decisive power on the vital items, what they do just obey the oder from government. Without the support from the government, scientists have little abilities to make a great discovery. It is not an individual behavior. Negative impact is not just scientist’s errors, on the contrary, the government should take the main responsibility for negative impact and outcomes. Illustrated with a simple example, the North Korean nuclear issue which ruins the peace of world, criticized by all over the countries. The study of nuclear power is not the individual desire of scientists, contrarily, which demand by North Korean’s government. In hence, there is on one censures the scientists, they would be more like to blame the North Korean’s government. Secondly, the new discovery is a double-edged sword, which has negative impact as well as positive impact. As the matter of fact, new discoveries bring the negative impact, in the meanwhile, it has taken a revolutionary change for our world, even the potential benefits we can not see clearly. Compared with the positive impact, the negative impact is not worth mentioning. People enjoy the change taken by great invention, appreciating all the great scientists. Scientists have no reason to take the responsibility for the negative impact. As the invention of car brings convenient and fast transportation which has changed our life style, it takes us the traffic jam and air population. Nevertheless, it is undeniable that we should give our thank to Henry Ford, who made the first car in the world. Similarly, as the nuclear power threatens the peace of world and human health, it is thought of as the clear and efficient power which can solve the shortage of fossil fuels.

Is it a good idea that professional athletes or celebrities enter politics? “All men are created equal” claimed by Declaration of Independence. Everyone has a right to decide and change their career, including the professional athletes and celebrities. As I know, many excellent athletes and super stars, they enter the politics as a new identity, stepping off their showbiz and sporting career. They work very well as before, even better. Therefore, it is a good idea that professional athletes or celebrities enter politics. My reasons will be discussed blew. Firstly, famous people, like professional athletes and celebrities, who have an influential celebrity charm. They have effected the society since they become famous. People in their country adore and respect them. So supported by the majority of big fans, when they enter politics, they will get more approval rate in politics. Arnold Schwarzenegger was a Mr. Olympia, as well as Hollywood superstar. He was the youngest Mr. Olympia and acted in lots of famous worldwide films. He had a prodigious achievement in his sporting and acting life, getting a lot of worship from the society. When Schwarzenegger entered politics, he won the election of Governor of California by about 48.6 percent support rate. The reason why he got so high support rate is that the worship to celebrities from the people in California. Secondly, the working experience of their precious career is one of peculiar advantages when they enter politics. Because of different working experience, celebrities have the specific professional skills and specialities which other politicians can not compare with. They can use their peculiar working experience to help them move up the top of politics. Ronald Wilson Reagan, an America's president, who was a actor in his early life. After he entered politics, his first job was to shoot martial education film. At that time, he took full advantage of his acting experience to work well. Besides, Reagan served as an announcer in WOC and WHO TV station when he graduated. He accumulated a good speaking skill during that time. So, he made a heart-stirring speech in the presidential campaign which gave him more probabilities to win the president position. sorry, the words are limited, please check the rest of my composition on my comment, thank you!

Help me with my composition,thanks! People who can not accept criticism will not succeed working in teams. When I was a child, my family taught me to be a modest person and always accepts other’s criticism, so that I will be successful one day. I did what they said in my lengthy childhood. But, as I grew up from day to day, I enhanced the awareness of myself, I know myself better than before. I found that I can not accept every criticism any more because I do not think others are true. By analogy, I strongly disagree that people who can not accept criticism will not succeed working in teams. My reasons are as follows. Firstly, as the old saying goes, truth always rests with the minority. The people who criticize you are not always right. People hold their opinions with their experience which suits themselves. Few people can put forward their suggestion by standing in your shoes, because it is hard for them to overcome their own thinking methods. Only you know what you want and what is the right choice for you. For example, When my boss promoted me to a leader in a senior position, I refused and insisted on working at my present position. At that time my boss was angry with my childish action. He thought I did not consider company’s current situation. But I'm the only one who know that I can not work with high pressure. I have been working hard and efficiently in the current position, and taking benefits for my company. Secondly, a successful leader in a team needs to be a critical thinker, not be a parrot following others. A leader who lacks with perspective can just run an unsuccessful or mediocre business. The team he leads can not move up the social pyramid. My best friend Davie, who is one of originators in his company. He always squabbles with other two originators, because other two originators criticize the idea he come up with is out of control and too risky. But Davie adhered to his opinion and pushed it go ahead. In the end, he made a successful product which has a good social influence. Admittedly, I am not denying that rejecting criticism will result in quarrel, breaking the harmonious working atmosphere. And sometime criticism is worth to accept. However, the quarrel can also let us know the voice from different people which is the source of more inspiration. And It gives the company the advantages of progress and development. From what I have discussed above, we can draw a conclusion that people who do not accept criticism still can be successful in their teams.

what does the sentence mean? The sheer scale of investment it took to begin commercial expansion at sea reflects the immensity of the profits that such East-West trade could create. Can you simplify it? I looked up new word in the dictionary, but i still can't understand the meaning. Thank you!

how to make a formal apology to a not very familiar people? if i made a big mistake, i said something hurt a people. how to give him a formal apology ? what sentence i can use? thank you!

I don't understand this sentence, can you explain this for me ? This photo enlargement here is a life-size image of an actual space suit. I simplify the sentence：This photo enlargement is a life-size image. Is this right? it say the photo is enlarged, and say it is life-size. I think it is contradictory. I don't understand.

How to call these people in authentic English？ How to call these people in authentic English or slang？ They are very good at studying , and spend much time on their course in the school. They can acquire much higher score than other students.

is the sentence right? Because of the high pay, those famous professors could willing to travel far away to our country to share their experience. How to make this sentence be a emphatic sentence? This is the high pay that famous professors could willing to travel far away to our country to share their experience. I want to emphasize “ the high pay” , is it right? thank you!