Should we privatize science or not?
969337
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.\n\nSo, 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.\n\nRemoving 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.
678939
right for scientific advancement\nwrong for violating nature.\n conclusion:\nwe should develop the technique but we should use it only in very demanding situation.
282691
I agree too many! And you others are wrong, stem cell research is still done in privately funded centers, only government funded centers cannot perform stem cell research! Nancy Reagen funds a privately owned  research center
520329
I think that is a lot of hooey. nothing is going to replace science.
248521
Absolutely not!  I wouldn't be going to college if it weren't for government grants.  It is all part of an effort to educate our society.  Government grants help people who wouldn't otherwise be able to receive a college education to do so, without having to take out tons of loans that can't be easily paid back.  I am proud to say that I received government grants for my college costs, and wouldn't think twice about it if I had to choose all over again.
423680
Not always.  A concept can be based on purely science.
843153
yeh i'd accept it, and i'd donate my eggs to find the cures if it was legal here. Those who are against stem cell research and cause all the problems to medical scientist trying to find cures, should also give up their right to be saved when the cures are established.
1062334
i am not sure i understand the question.\n\nthe private sphere is legislated and regulated...interstate commerce, tariffs ect. ect.\n\nTeddy Roosevelt was a bad MF at taking on the  Robber Barons of his time.\nWe have the FDA because of him.\n\nThat said private institutions should maintainn some degree of protection as long as they seek no federal funds,  or use any federal resources.
173254
i work for the govt and i am a financial manager for NASA research. we get most of our funds from congressional adds and private researchers. the rest of it is from different institutions needing to know the information for a current or future program.\n\nthanks,\n\nryan\n\nair force research labs.
404286
I don't trust the private sector. I think that because they also have to make a profit for their services, they have a conflict of interest in helping.
326198
Where do you live?\nThe US are currently being held back a bit in terms of research by the Government's conservative posture, meaning that no federal money is being put into controversial technologies such as stem cell research. A lot of researchers are going to Europe instead, seemingly opportunities there are growing.\nThere's probably still a lot of money in biology in the US, though. But it's decreasing.
215108
Good question but I have to say that messing with the universe is rather impulsive and risky. Perhaps we should look to simpler projects like over population or world peace?\n\n*wink*
1033169
Absolutely not!  A new technology must be experimented and tested before it is given out to the public because you never know if it is safe or not.
695559
No.  There are hundreds of thousands of scientists in the world, if not millions, and very few ever achieve recognition for their work on the public scale.  We do it because we're interested in our work and our results, and because we enjoy it.
919397
This is shocking. I don't know if I should; your teacher should see this the way it is. Oh well . . . \n\n\nThere are some opposing assertions here. \nThey deride my opinion because they are saying it is too pessimistic, and that humankind will not be ruined. Their claims are like these: \nWe are in the middle of a growth period, and if technology is to advance, solar energy must be substituted for coal and oil energy so that pollution can be decreased, and we finally find the way to live together with nature. \nAs we were in the previous industrial-revolution era in Britain, we are in a time of transition; even though it seems bad, it's just a 'standing on tiptoe'. \nScience technology must lead us to the ideal society.\n\n\n\n\n***This is STILL terrible, I'm not going to re-write the whole thing. Plus they will know this is not your work. Get a tutor, quick.
551020
Yes, there a conservative scientists as well.  Not surprising, there are also apolitical scientists that just want to focus on science.
96556
you are right to some extent but it is important to publish as all the science work is dedicated to humanity....to serve it....it is man who is responsible how to handle it...like revolver can be used to prtect yourself and some use to kill other....i guess u agree!