One of the trends that has recently occurred is that the private sector now is funding and holding much of scientific research. Despite economic benefits this development offers, I believe the downsides of it are more significant, from both societal and scientific standpoints.

Private funding does lead to financial gains, however. Because companies, be it food chains or canneries, tend to prioritize efficiency gains, thus shifting focus of scientific investigations towards either streamlining production or introducing innovative technology. Such a shift can not only bolster revenues, but also reduce operation costs. On top of that, private scientific research sometimes draws more investments, as a result of which more experiments, top-notch technology and, no less importantly, high-profile experts can be involved too. These factors alone boost both productivity and efficiency of the research, yielding tangible results, like the formula for Coca Cola drinks.

Yet, I assert that the demerits are greater, for example when viewed through a social lens. When public is ill-informed on scientific breakthroughs, from nanotechnology to newly-found particles, education and overall scientific development in such a nation is likely to face hindrances. Without the laser technology, specifically, the medical industry would be challenged to proceed surgeries with as much precision—thus proving the importance of private corporations sharing science knowledge. Commercialization is another threat; it is this factor that drives company's sales when an invention is applied in production, but it also confines the scope of the research. Resultantly, delays in scientific progress are to happen—and unfortunately so.

To conclude, although there are some positives of science being sponsored by non-government companies, my conviction is that the negative aspects—both social and scientific—are more considerable.

The chart describes a breakdown of labor force and management, with units measured in percentage points.

In short, in Egypt, women represented the smallest portion of the workforce, compared to other countries listed. This, however, was not the case in Japan, where the opposite was true, while Australia and the USA top the list as women there comprised the largest fraction in the chart.

The share of female workers in Japan was highest, at 48%, followed closely by the USA (at 46%), Sri Lanka and Australia (both of which stood at 42%). Egypt, a country where only one in five worker is a woman, rounded out the list.

Yet much lower proportions for women were seen in managerial positions. The USA and Australia reported to have 43% of women in such positions, almost three times the figure for Japan (17%). In Egypt, though, the percentage was even smaller—one-fourth that of the leading two nations (12%), but it was female managers in Sri Lanka that recorded a chart low of 9%.

Fewer young people read books nowadays.

What are the causes of this?
What are the effects?

There is an issue prevalent in many countries—a decreasing number of the young reading books. This is largely attributable to modern reading habits and shifts in values, with potential ramifications ranging from an illiterate generation to the disappearance of reading hubs, so-called reading clubs.

Of the major reasons behind the falling number of young readers, current reading trends are the most common. Unfortunately, young readers are now more attracted to e-books, online blogs and articles and, as a result, conventional books are falling out of favor—even more so in countries, such as Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, that have just seen their reading culture transform. Such changes are thus a byproduct of modern life, however sad it seems. The other reason, newly-adopted values, is no less important; because school and university students have to be digitally literate, they are compelled to be exposed to computer technology—so they can secure a well-paid job or achieve great academic heights, for example. Had they been given a choice to remain with job requirements of the past, which did not encompass computer literacy, reading textbooks would have definitely been more commonplace.

Shedding light on repercussions of this, now-unpopular reading print books, a less literate generation seems to be the most concerning. With textbooks left behind and habits shifted towards entertainment, binge scrolling, and video games—three of the most widespread pastime activities of the 21st century—becoming less educated is just a matter of time. American teenagers, who used to be performing well and having a good grasp of history in the early 2000s, cannot now boast the same erudition. Asian young people are not outliers too: they have also been subject to modernization of their leisure time spending habits, ones that used to be devoted to reading novels and, to a lesser extent, ancient history. If these implications are to persist, reading hubs are also at danger. These places, where young readers used to gather to share ideas, discuss scenes in books and therefore develop their reading skills, are likely to become much less often visited, or in extreme cases even empty —a mutual drawback for both the visitors themselves and the hubs.

In summary, there are two root causes explaining why readers numbers' are on the decline: technological advancements and digital literacy. Accompanying this development, however, are less knowledgeable young people and the prospective shut-down of reading hubs.

Opinions on the environmental protection are divided: some contend we are late to take any action; others disagree, claiming there are still some effective approaches, which would ameliorate the issue. I, though, firmly believe the question is too individual and both parties' views are valid.

Opponents of environmental preservation may say that, given the magnitude of climate change, habitat fragmentation and other problems alike, it is worthless to put any effort into it. Weather patterns have become more unpredictable and, even worse, current technological can not allow for tackling it, nor can we persuade countries with abundant natural parks to designate them for endangered animals. This is much as in the case of the Aral Desert, previously known as the Aral Sea, that locals attempted to re-fill with water again by channeling it from a Russian river. Yet ultimately, Russian authorities declined the offer. Such a list of unsolvable challenges may go beyond these problems—to, for example, deforestation or, sadly, animal extinction.

This view, however sensible it seems, is as significant as that of supporters of environmental protection. They often put forward an idea of funding de-extinction projects to bring back some valuable species, like the Thylacine, which would probably reduce the dominance of Dingo in Australia. Channeling some funds to nations where national parks are extensive and can further be equipped with all the necessary equipment to accommodate more animals can be of great help too. In return to such a favor, these countries would receive financial rewards or gain more popularity to establish better international relations, an aspect that serves as a cornerstone of international trade, for instance.

Seen as positive as they are, the two arguments above are, however, subjective, for none of them can address worldwide issues, but only regional ones. I am, therefore, of the stance that in some cases, like habitat destruction, it is feasible, and also morally advisable, to be proactive; yet if it is not generally viable, as it is with climate change, being skeptical of protecting environment today is understandable too. So, the question of whether to put forth the preservation of nature remains case-specific, thus requiring a different set of criteria to consider across cases.

In conclusion, both those who are in support and in opposition of taking measures to counteract environmental problems have valid reasons to prove their stance. My conviction is that the case can't be generalized, because of which separately considered criteria would be necessary.