Government should spend more money on medical research and less on researching the environment. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

Nowadays, a large part of the state budget is spent on

medicine

, not on the

environment

. Many

people

think

the

Correct article usage

apply

show examples

medical treatment has to be more important than

climate

change. I both agree and disagree with

this

view. In

this

essay, I will discuss the advantages and disadvantages of

this

statement. Many governments are focusing on medical investigation

instead

of the

environment

. Many medical drugs are produced from plants, which grow in nature. Apart from

this

, many incurable

diseases

result from the deterioration of

climate

.

For example

, if the country's

climate

is very polluted, most of the locals will be sick with various types of illnesses.

Furthermore

, many countries have a lot of factories that produce very toxic chemical fumes. If the world

climate

continues to be polluted by tox, none of the

medicine

can save

people

from

diseases

,

such

as heart disease, stroke, COPD and lung cancer. To protect the

environment

, governments should control the production of plastics because the factories that produce them emit fumes that are very harmful to humans.

On the other hand

, the government has to pay attention to medical treatment to detect and treat new undiagnosed

diseases

.

For instance

, good nature alone is not enough for many

people

to recover, in

this

case,

people

have to use the

medicine

. Society should be attentive to medication for the treatment of various chronic

diseases

. In conclusion, the government has to spend most of the cash on

medicine

. If they spend money on

climate

, they cannot fix all problems that are related to illnesses. In my opinion, if nature is good,

diseases

will decrease as well, there is no need for excessive medical procedures. The government should spend money on both researching the

environment

and medical research.