Should we privatize science or not?

Answer 1

Bell Labs, Watson Labs, Palo Alto Research Center and several others were very important corporately funded research organizations. Sadly "research" has become a dirty word in corporate boardrooms, probably because any investment that does not pay itself back within 5 years is generally off the table in the minds of stockholders.

So, all the great labs are becoming much more product development oriented with the result that the corporate United States has been eating its technological seed corn for some years now. About the only real basic research that takes place now is federally funded, but those dollars have been in decline against inflation for some time also except for a very few small sub fields.

Removing federal funding of basic research will only hasten our journey into becoming, well, not a technological backwater, but sort of like Spain; relying on developments in other nations to keep our economy going, which pretty much means picking up the leavings after new tech has evolved one or two generations.

Answer 2

A certain amount of publicly funded science is a good thing. Many fundamental issues have no commercial potential, but enhance our lives by increasing our understanding of the world we live in. While individuals, foundations, and corporations do provide considerable support from the private sector, undertakings such as space exploration and orbiting telescopes would probably not happen without government support.

On the other hand, it is certainly necessary to have research going on in the private sector as well. Letting the government control it all is not a good idea - just look at how politicized some aspects of biological research have become in the US in recent years.

Answer 3

Not completely. Privatizing it does provide more money for it, so research is more likely to yield some useful results. But privatizing it also means more likely that the practical applications of the research (such things as medicines, inventions, medical procedures) will cost much more because the private owner has to make a profit for his investment to be worth it. And since it is privately owned, the government would have a difficult time making them drop the price (and it is quite likely the government would fail altogether).

Answer 4

Science is not and never has been a government function, although it has increasingly benefited from government money. I suppose you mean to ask if we should discontinue government funding of science in any form. It is like Art this way. Art is private but does get some government funding. So withdrawing all government funding of science in general, is that the question? I don't think that would be a good idea.

Answer 5

Like already 90% of science is privatized.

Answer 6

Most science is privatized, thought?

Answer 7

Ermmm

The majority of science is done in private institutions already

Answer 8

NO!!! The trouble with capitalism is, it doesn't deliver the goods. Privatising science means no basic research, just shortsighted moneyspinning projects. In the case of medical research, privatisation means billions of research dollars being wasted on rubbish like Viagra while killer diseases like malaria, sleeping sickness and infant diarrhoea are ignored because they are diseases of the poor, who can't afford to pay for medicines.

Answer 9

I don't get your question. Plenty of private organizations participate in scientific activities.

Answer 10

No.
Otherwise bastard scientists would be making clones and providing people with euthanasia without governmental consent.