Many people argue that knowledge in the science field, business information as well as academic one should be publicized, meanwhile, others suppose that it would be better to limit the access to the information. I believe that some vital concepts should not be easily accessible to the whole community.
On the one hand, it is explanatory why some people prefer particular information should be open to the public. Provided that everyone is allowed to hold scientific techniques, the whole community would be benefitted at large, since essential and inexpensive goods would be manufactured on a substantial scale. Centuries ago, for instance, it was that only a number of people who has high socioeconomic status was able to own a clock. Once the method used to produce them was widely unveiled, the probability of possessing a clock was accessible to the poor.
On the other hand, I support the idea that the access of specialized information should be restricted. On reason is that some kinds of knowledge are extremely important to such an extent that the inappropriate use of these techniques would probably be a root of some global disasters. For example, the US had bombed two residential sites in Japan, Nagasaki and Hiroshima, caused the death of thousands of Japanese at the end of the World War II. If the methodology of making the atomic bomb is obtained effortlessly to the Islamic State, the death tolls around the globe would not be able to count. Secondly, many researchers, as well as experts, devoted their entire life to searching in their chosen field, their achievements should be provided sufficient rewards such as the patent or copyright to their goals.
In conclusion, the admission to access essential information should be open to the whole community, however, vital and dangerous one should be narrowly provided.
Many
people
argue that knowledge in the science field, business
information
as well
as academic one should
be publicized
, meanwhile, others suppose that it would be better to limit the access to the
information
. I believe that
some
vital concepts should not be
easily
accessible to the whole community.
On the one hand, it is explanatory why
some
people
prefer particular
information
should be open to the public. Provided that everyone is
allowed
to hold scientific techniques, the whole community would be
benefitted
at large, since essential and inexpensive
goods
would
be manufactured
on a substantial scale. Centuries ago,
for instance
, it was that
only
a number of
people
who has high socioeconomic status was able to
own
a clock. Once the method
used
to produce them was
widely
unveiled, the probability of possessing a clock was accessible to the poor.
On the other hand
, I support the
idea
that the access of specialized
information
should
be restricted
. On reason is that
some
kinds of knowledge are
extremely
important
to such an extent that the inappropriate
use
of these techniques would
probably
be a root of
some
global disasters.
For example
, the US had bombed two residential sites in Japan, Nagasaki and Hiroshima, caused the death of thousands of Japanese at the
end
of the World War II. If the methodology of making the atomic bomb
is obtained
effortlessly
to the Islamic State, the death tolls around the globe would not be able to count.
Secondly
,
many
researchers,
as well
as experts, devoted their entire life to searching in their chosen field, their achievements should
be provided
sufficient rewards such as the patent or copyright to their goals.
In conclusion
, the admission to access essential
information
should be open to the whole community,
however
, vital and
dangerous
one should be
narrowly
provided.