Cambridge IELTS 12 Test 1 Writing Task 2: Sample Answer

The open exchange of knowledge is often treated as an unquestionable good, yet few people would argue that every piece of information should be released to anyone who asks. Both positions deserve consideration.

Supporters of free sharing point first to the pace of progress. When researchers publish their methods and data, others can replicate the findings, correct errors and build on them, which spares laboratories around the world from solving the same problem separately. The rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines, for example, owed much to the fact that scientists posted viral genome sequences within days of identifying them. Openness also makes fraud harder, because results that cannot be scrutinised are easy to exaggerate.

Others, however, argue that some information is too sensitive, or too costly to produce, to be given away. A company that spends a decade developing a new battery has little incentive to continue if competitors can copy the design overnight, and patents and trade secrets exist precisely to protect that investment. In academia, research on dangerous pathogens or weapons technology could cause real harm if it were to fall into the wrong hands, so restricted access may be a matter of public safety rather than selfishness.

In my view, openness should be the default, with carefully defined exceptions. Most scientific findings carry no security risk, and publicly funded studies in particular belong to the taxpayers who paid for them. Commercial secrecy can be justified for a limited period, such as the twenty years granted to a patent, after which the knowledge should enter the public domain. Material that poses a genuine threat, meanwhile, ought to be reviewed by independent bodies before release.

Overall, a balance that rewards innovators and protects society, while keeping the great majority of knowledge accessible, seems the most sensible course.