Scientists around the world should work together to do scientific research, but some people worry that this may have disadvantages. Discuss both views and give your opinion.
Scientific research has brought about countless breakthroughs and innovations to mankind since antiquity, resulting in numerous debates on how it should be conducted. Recently, there is a school of thought which advocates that research should be carried out by scientists globally, while others warn against it, citing its inherent flaws. In the writer’s view, the potential benefit of this pales in comparison to its shortcoming.
Proponents of global cooperation among scientists argue that collectively conducted research on a global scale may foster inclusiveness among all regions. To illustrate, research on climate change often overlooks its detailed impacts on vulnerable and underrepresented regions, such as Maldives and Micronesian archipelago, in favor of the big picture. The global cooperation of scientists may address this problem in order that the public can have access to the latest information on different parts of the world, thus ensuring fewer stricken regions will fall into oblivion.
Despite the above benefit, such collaboration may potentially lead to stagnation. Conducting research on a global scale demands extensive data collection, field studies, rigorous testing, and thorough peer reviews before reaching completion. Typically, research projects take years or even decades to complete. Scientists must collect and analyze extensive data, engage in discussions, and reconcile differing interpretations before reaching a consensus. Therefore, a global research project which includes scientists around the world may confront even more considerable hindrance and this challenge could breed despondency among researchers, who may abandon the projects due to the lack of common ground.
In conclusion, while collaboration on a global scale may sound more inclusive and beneficial to the most vulnerable and underrepresented groups, such projects are unrealistic due to their immense scale and workload, and the disparity among academics on how the data should be interpreted. Thus, rather than engaging in large-scale global collaboration, it would be more practical for scientists to conduct research in smaller, specialized teams and rely on thorough peer reviews to ensure accuracy and efficiency.
