Scientific research should be carried out and controlled by private companies rather than governments. Do the advantages of this situation outweigh the disadvantages?

It is true that the question of whether the states or private enterprises should bear the responsibility for conducting scientific

research

remains a source of controversy. While there are minor positive aspects of

this

trend in the short term, I would argue that overall, these are outweighed by enormous disadvantages. On the one hand, one advantage is that private companies are incentive to innovate and contribute to the public good. Examples of

this

behaviour abound though they are less likely to receive excessive media attention.

Such

breakthroughs include medicines

such

as, very recently, the vaccines for Covid-19 developed by Pfizer, and the technologies that big corporations

such

as Apple, and Google have pioneered over the decade. These private enterprises are able to hire and remunerate the best employees and are often driven by competition to be innovative and strive to make discoveries that benefit the general citizenry

On the other hand

, I believe that there are significant benefits if states determine the direction of scientific

research

for the well-being of their people. Those in favour of state control over

research

argue that governments are not motivated to generate revenue.

Moreover

, the highest standards can be set by providing funding for university departments to carry out high-quality

research

to meet public needs, not to break into new markets or gain a competitive edge. As competition between companies is eliminated, the sharing of knowledge through international cooperation among the scientific community becomes prevalent. In conclusion, it seems to me that the advantages of placing the responsibility for scientific

research

in the government's hands far outweigh any disadvantages.