Scientific research should be primarily funded by governments instead of commercial companies. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

In middle age, knowledge was locked by missionaries. Till the 19th century, nobles played an important role in improving technologies. In the concurrent world, normal people can be accessed to advanced ones. They can go to universities to devote themselves to creating new inventions. Some people claim that these scientists should all be belonged to the authorisations whereas others clarify that they should contribute themselves to private companies. To me, the latter one is better than the former one.

Firstly

, researches are cultivated by the governments may have several drawbacks. They may not concern all aspects. Since they are the management, they may only care about the military weapons.

Subsequently

, they may spend more money on war equipment. Another reason is its bureaucracy.

For instance

, the council may take a load of time on deciding whether

this

case should be continued or not.

Hence

,

this

process may become wasted and costly.

Secondly

, we can see through the global. Some countries

such

as the USA have the most powerful and rivalrous technology. The reasons why they have these things are that their enterprises have dedicated so much money and invited the most intelligent populations on their own businesses.

In addition

, they can become the

first

on the field. Take Apple as an example, they inject so many fundings into inventing. And the result is that they do have the most sensational tech. To sum, studies are conducted by commercial ones do have their benefits. To conclude, I consider that governments should be replaced private institutes for inventing. Overall, it has more positives than its negatives .