Should science be an "open community" where ideas are exchanged and shared? how does NOT sharing information have an impact on scientific advancements?

Yes ideas should be exchanged and shared.

Explanation:

When informations are shared, their will be scientific progress and advancement in the society at large. but it is unfortunate that scientists have private incentives to avoid disclosing research.

When informations are shared by many scientists, they will test and build on each others works but the scientist refuse to share this because they may not be acknowledged for their work or they get scooped by a competitior.

Futhermore, Sharing information can catalyse new collaborations and also increase confidence in findings and generate goodwill among the scientists.

By not sharing informations, it will be hard for a new invention to be successful. Research is the activity that produces new product or better processes.

"1. it should be, it has been for about 20 years, and it's really not much different in the end than breeding animals to have particular traits. there are always concerns about genetically engineered animals/plants affecting the environment in unexpected negative ways, but i can't think of an example where the fears didn't turn out to be baseless.  

first, as you point out, it would be a great advance in pharmacology, to be able to tailor drugs and their doses to me. the pros involve better medical treatment. the cons involve privacy issues like insurance companies denying coverage to people with genetic risk factors. looking at dna markers wouldn't affect the frequency of genetic diseases, but it would allow detection of them earlier. and ok, actually i suppose that if people used this information to avoid having children with genetic diseases, some might decrease in frequency."

black

lasagna

lunch

math