It is claimed that cross-national collaboration can make significant breakthroughs in the research process, while others argue that the demerits of this international approach should not be underestimated. This exam will evaluate both schools of thought before presenting my perspective.
On the one hand, opponents insist that international cooperation would bring along with enormous obstacles to some extent. It is evident that various searching methods would be applied by different scientists and researchers, science institutions generally. Plus, combining multiple nationalities, cultures, regions, and languages serves as a monumental challenge for them to communicate and sympathise. This would lead to the conflict between their outlooks and the possible occurrence of misunderstandings and misguidance among the team. As a result, international research alliances would be broken, coming together with an unsatisfying outcome.
On the other hand, advocates for this viewpoint believe that cross-border collaboration should be fostered for some substantial reasons. Visibly, digging into a specific field requires a large amount of time, effort and funding that a sole subject could not complete comprehensively. Therefore, using interdisciplinary insights could not only accelerate the process but also allow scientists to have multifaceted views about problems, leading to optimal advanced innovations. However, I contend that in order to make efficiency of research, working together is not enough. Besides, the specific goal and systematic operation should be highlighted considerably to reduce strategic vulnerabilities and data misuse.
In conclusion, although some individuals claim that international cooperation holds several disadvantages, I strongly believe that with an appropriate goal, burning passion to explore the world and organized schedules, the advantages of cross-national research will surpass and bring groundbreaking innovations for human life.