Sharing information has become quite common in the academic and business worlds. While some people argue that it is necessary for scientific progress, others think it should be shared under certain circumstances, and to some extent I agree with the first opinion.
Many people think that sharing knowledge should be at the highest level. First, it can save a lot of time for researchers. Carrying out scientific research can be time-consuming, and it needs lots of effort. If the information is widely available, it will not require everyone to conduct it separately, and they can benefit from others' results. Consequently, they save time, and it is an opportunity for scientific advancements. Secondly, sharing information freely can save help financially for people who don't have enough money to do projects. For instance, performing medical experiments needs lots of money or even financial aid from the government. If the information were published freely, many physicians from poor countries can access the results, and it can be life-saving. On the contrary, many believe sharing information should be restricted. First, some scientists maybe lose their motivation because they cannot make money from their work. They spend lots of time to achieve a crucial breakthrough. If they are not satisfied with their result, it would discourage them. Secondly, some information is extremely secure. For instance, details about nuclear energy should not be accessible for terrorism. It can be extremely dangerous for humanity if they can acquire the knowledge. Another example is companies. They need to keep their business information secret in order to keep themselves ahead of others and prevent losing money. In conclusion, many people including me, believe information should be available for the public. However, others argue sharing information should be limited.
Sharing
information
has become quite common in the academic and business worlds. While
some
people
argue that it is necessary for scientific progress, others
think
it should
be shared
under certain circumstances, and to
some
extent I
agree
with the
first
opinion.
Many
people
think
that
sharing
knowledge should be at the highest level.
First
, it can save a
lot
of time for researchers. Carrying out scientific research can be time-consuming, and it needs
lots
of effort. If the
information
is
widely
available, it will not require everyone to conduct it
separately
, and they can benefit from others' results.
Consequently
, they save time, and it is an opportunity for scientific advancements.
Secondly
,
sharing
information
freely
can save
help
financially
for
people
who don't have
enough
money
to do projects.
For instance
, performing medical experiments needs
lots
of
money
or even financial aid from the
government
. If the
information
were published
freely
,
many
physicians from poor countries can access the results, and it can be life-saving.
On the contrary
,
many
believe
sharing
information
should
be restricted
.
First
,
some
scientists maybe lose their motivation
because
they cannot
make
money
from their work. They spend
lots
of time to achieve a crucial breakthrough. If they are not satisfied with their result, it would discourage them.
Secondly
,
some
information
is
extremely
secure.
For instance
,
details
about nuclear energy should not be accessible for terrorism. It can be
extremely
dangerous
for humanity if they can acquire the knowledge. Another example is
companies
. They need to
keep
their business
information
secret in order to
keep
themselves ahead of others and
prevent
losing
money
.
In conclusion
,
many
people
including me, believe
information
should be available for the public.
However
, others argue
sharing
information
should
be limited
.