We are living in a world where information is one of the most valuable resources. Therefore, the controversy about which of this information can be shared publicly and which one should be private has arisen some arguments among researchers and academics. According to me, it is necessary for the society to be advised on new updates and findings in all the disciplines, but always with cautiousness.

On the one hand, people that believe that sharing information can be costly might have a fear that this data is stolen or expropriated. Most of the time, several researchers are being paid at the same time to run a similar experiment. Therefore, this can lead to unfair competition such us taking others ideas and doing politics instead of science. However, I believe that the community should be cooperative enough in order not to have to worry about other parties and compete only against their own time and resources.

On the other hand, there are the ones that believe that all the information should be shared. These are considered the risk-lovers in academia. Most of them are keen on publishing public papers, being transparent to society and creating synergies with other teams.  Even if I consider it the best way to do research, sometimes it might imply double work, since the first result is not always the right one. Not surprisingly, you can find  researchers that publish temporary results, which are far away from the final publication.

To conclude, I would  be open to sharing information with other researchers and society, but always keeping in mind that the information being shared is well elaborated and contrasted.