There is an argument that sharing information should be done free as far as possible, while others believe that some far more valuable data ought is shared freely. I tend to agree with the first idea more, however, it seems that another one can be also reasonable.
On one hand, for occurring the development and progress in science and academic fields, scientists should access more data and details. The more details they able to study, the more significant development they can achieve. Thus, if this information is not accessible free for them, there will be a barrier in scientific development. In fact, some researchers may not be supported financially, and being non-free of available information causes experts do not to acquire important results to complete their research. Take researchers working on disease as an example; If they are not familiar with previous studies and data, so how they would able to progress in this field and improve the method of treatment or diagnosis.
On the other hand, producing information needs money. Indeed, people who have established data, have spent money, time and even have endangered their life to collect and study. So, sharing their achievement free would not be sensible. In other words, this is their occupation and should have income and one of the ways is to sell their findings. For instance, researchers working in a laboratory and surveying on the subjects should profit from their fund and investment by establishing information non-free. Making money itself is an inducement to study and work more and more. As a result, it is reasonable to share very significant data freely to help others in their way.
In conclusion, establishing information free can assist society and scientists to develop owing to access it without restriction, also simultaneously can cause to prevent it due to lack of financial support.
There is an argument that sharing
information
should
be done
free
as far as possible, while others believe that
some
far more valuable
data
ought
is shared
freely
. I tend to
agree
with the
first
idea
more,
however
, it seems that another one can be
also
reasonable.
On one hand, for occurring the development and progress in science and academic fields, scientists should access more
data
and
details
. The more
details
they able to
study
, the more significant development they can achieve.
Thus
, if this
information
is not accessible
free
for them, there will be a barrier in scientific development. In fact,
some
researchers may not
be supported
financially
, and being non-free of available
information
causes experts do not to acquire
important
results to complete their research. Take researchers working on disease as an example; If they are not familiar with previous
studies
and
data
,
so
how they
would able
to progress in this field and
improve
the method of treatment or diagnosis.
On the
other
hand, producing
information
needs money.
Indeed
,
people
who have established
data
, have spent money, time and even have endangered their life to collect and
study
.
So
, sharing their achievement
free
would not be sensible. In
other
words, this is their occupation and should have income and one of the ways is to sell their findings.
For instance
, researchers working in a laboratory and surveying on the subjects should profit from their fund and investment by establishing
information
non-free. Making money itself is an inducement to
study
and work more and more.
As a result
, it is reasonable to share
very
significant
data
freely
to
help
others in their way.
In conclusion
, establishing
information
free
can assist society and scientists to develop owing to access it without restriction,
also
simultaneously
can cause to
prevent
it due to lack of financial support.