Discussion Title: Should science get more governmental funding?

1. Science should get more governmental funding.
1.1. Pro: More government funding would lead to more societal advancement through science.
1.1.1. Pro: It'll reduce issues like [duplicity and under-sharing](https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/12/scientists-have-a-sharing-problem/383061/) from waiting and a lack of funding.
1.1.2. Pro: It'll make discoveries happen [faster](https://theconversation.com/teaching-the-public-more-science-likely-wont-boost-support-for-funding-but-sparking-their-curiosity-might-100940).
1.1.2.1. Pro: Some of these discoveries may even be solutions to society’s challenges.
1.1.2.1.1. Pro: If more funds are given to science it will help in the research of new technologies for climate change and for finding cures for new diseases.
1.1.2.2. Pro: Longer gestation projects requires government funding to create the incentive for the 'next giant leap' \(in innovation\).
1.1.2.3. Con: Discoveries may be slower with the government, as [priorities change when those in governmental positions change](https://www.space.com/2401-space-access-private-investment-public-funding-debate.html) seats every few years. Instead, a company will carry a mission until it's complete, due to the lack of this constraint.
1.1.2.4. Pro: Science has made some discoveries in the past and investing more in science means more beneficial discoveries.
1.1.3. Pro: It can lead to economic development through [commercial use](https://spinoff.nasa.gov/Spinoff2008/tech_benefits.html) of discoveries.
1.1.3.1. Pro: Countries can benefit from the export of medicines they discover and develop.
1.1.3.2. Con: Commercialization could unfortunately lead to increased economic inequality. Countries unable to compete in further technological advancements will become oppressed by countries who perhaps could develop authoritarian tendencies, through utilizing their newfound, advantaged, technological position, against lesser economically developed countries \(LEDCs\).
1.1.3.2.1. Con: In this case, economic inequality might be a good thing and short-term. With the technological gains by some countries, they could extend the benefits to LEDCs for them to be lifted up too. LEDCs would likely go nowhere if no country improves technologically.
1.1.4. Pro: It'll [reduce](https://youtu.be/L7oklmbtxoY?t=114) the amount of time scientists search for funding elsewhere, so they can focus on their research more.
1.1.4.1. Con: Since it is statistically impossible to fund every scientific project even with government funding, some scientists will still compete among each other to get funding of their neglected projects. Therefore, a lot of time is still likely to be spent on acquiring funding amongst these projects.
1.1.4.1.1. Con: Since there would be fewer projects, there'll be less time spent competing for the same amount of money from other sources.
1.1.4.2. Pro: On average, it takes scientists [34 days](https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/3/5/e002800) to write a proposal. They are likely to write more scientific articles if funding is just guaranteed instead.
1.1.5. Pro: Providing science with government funding helps STEM majors find jobs in their field.
1.1.5.1. Con: If the government diverted that funding to the humanities, students with degree in the field would find more jobs. Providing jobs to STEM majors is not more important than providing jobs to students in other disciplines.
1.1.6. Pro: According to experts, [a better informed and educated society](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-development-goals-science/investing-in-science-can-be-the-game-changer-for-development-experts-idUSKCN0PJ1TV20150709) will help establish policies that help long-term well-being over decisions that favor short-term economic and political interests.
1.1.7. Pro: Investing in science strongly contributes in closing the [gap](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-development-goals-science/investing-in-science-can-be-the-game-changer-for-development-experts-idUSKCN0PJ1TV20150709) between developed and developing countries.
1.1.8. Con: Future advancements and developments in scientific fields may negatively influence individuals and society.
1.1.8.1. Con: People lived shorter, more violent, more impoverished lives in the past. Technological advances have contributed a massive net positive to human life. If scientific developments have had negative impacts in the past, they're likely to have them in the future too.
1.1.8.1.1. Con: Future technologies may have an entirely different impact on society than past ones.
1.1.8.2. Pro: Genetic engineering and electronic implants could lead to the creation of a new class of people. This will divide societies into those who can afford and those who can not.
1.1.8.2.1. Con: Electronic implants and genetic engineering will likely be affordable by most people in the future. Market forces and technological improvements should drive the prices down low enough for mass adoption.
1.1.8.3. Con: Most future advancements with positive and negative influences still have a net positive influence. So government funding is overall worth pursuing.
1.1.8.4. Pro: Developing Artificial Intelligence could lead to [mass unemployment](https://www.business.com/articles/john-barnett-artificial-intelligence-job-market/).
1.1.8.5. Con: Science creates only the means and the knowledge; how these are used is a political issue that societies need to discuss.
1.1.8.5.1. Pro: No invention is in itself 'good' or 'bad'. It all depends on how it is used, and who uses it.
1.1.8.5.2. Pro: Societies can pass legislature to prohibit or regulate matters how they see fit.
1.1.9. Con: There are several issues needed to be resolved immediately which are causing human suffering \(like poverty and hunger\) but are not receiving the funding needed. Science may lead to more societal advancement but it is these current issues that need greater attention before science.
1.1.9.1. Con: Both issues can be addressed simultaneously. They do not mutually exclude each other. Funding science can actually benefit solving challenges of human suffering, so prioritizing one over the other doesn't make logical sense.
1.2. Pro: An increase in state funding secures the independence of science from commercial interests.
1.2.1. Con: Scientists will always turn to private corporations, e.g., because they offer excellent conditions and/or salary.
1.2.1.1. Pro: On average, industry scientists make more money than academic researchers.
1.2.1.1.1. Pro: A [Life Sciences Salary Survey \(2014\)](https://www.northeastern.edu/graduate/blog/working-in-industry-vs-academia/) found that American, Canadian, and European scientists that worked in industry made about 30 percent more than those in academia: On average, academics, including postdocs, make $88,693 annually, while commercial scientists make $129,507.
1.2.1.2. Pro: There are more opportunities [in the industry](https://www.northeastern.edu/graduate/blog/working-in-industry-vs-academia/) to make a career and lead larger teams and projects compared to academia.
1.2.2. Pro: Much of the research is driven by commercial interests whose priorities are for the highest profit, not the highest utility.
1.2.2.1. Pro: Almost [75%](https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/who_pays) of U.S. clinical trials in medicine are paid for by private companies.
1.2.3. Pro: Funding by commercial entities may introduce biases.
1.2.3.1. Pro: A pharmaceutical company paying for a study of a new depression medication, [for example](https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/who_pays), might influence the study's design or interpretation in ways that subtly favor the drug that they'd like to market.
1.2.3.2. Pro: Nutrition research sponsored by the food industry is more likely to end up favoring the food under consideration than [independently funded research](https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/who_pays).
1.2.3.3. Pro: In the 1960s, the sugar industry paid scientists at [Harvard University](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2548255) to minimize the link between sugar and heart disease.
1.2.4. Con: The funding of science gives some countries a technological edge, which may increase the risk of them to take advantage of the lesser fortunate ones economically by [cornering the market](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornering_the_market).
1.2.4.1. Pro: One of those manipulation methods is [price gouging](http://economics.fundamentalfinance.com/price-gouging.php) when selling technologies - they become overpriced to those who truly need them.
1.2.5. Con: Scientific research requires enormous amounts of [funding](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/1/18/18183939/science-funding-grant-lotteries-research). It is unlikely politicians will divert enough funding towards it. Therefore, companies will have to rely on private funding to cover the costs.
1.3. Pro: The public supports the increase in spending on scientific research.
1.3.1. Pro: Many people \(particularly in the [US](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chLOgj8xjx8)\) believe their government is spending too much on the military and that money is being used inefficiently, so they would support the idea of taking some of those wasted resources and putting them to scientific use instead.
1.3.1.1. Con: Governments may divert funding from essential state services \(instead of defense, where most of the scientific funding's being allocated to\), which will be harmful to people who rely on them to survive.
1.3.1.1.1. Pro: In countries with a non-elected government, the [military](http://web.archive.org/web/20190902140419/https://www.pier.or.th/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/workshop2016_paper2_Sasatra_Amornrat.pdf) has a huge influence in politics, attaining a larger budget for itself and decreasing it for science. With this stronghold, it is unlikely the defense budget will be reduced to increase funding for science.
1.3.2. Pro: [About half of U.S. adults](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/09/04/democrats-more-supportive-than-republicans-of-federal-spending-for-scientific-research/) \(52%\) say they would increase federal spending for scientific research.
1.4. Con: The additional funds governments provide science will have to be alienated from other areas. This may negatively affect the country.
1.4.1. Con: -> See 1.3.1.
1.4.2. Con: Governments could raise taxes.
1.4.2.1. Pro: If taxes are going to a good cause, where people know for sure that it'll have an impact \(especially due to past successes\), and will generate economic returns greater than the cost, then people won't mind having taxes raised for this.
1.4.2.1.1. Con: People tend to like having as little taxes as possible, so this isn't always the case.
1.4.2.2. Con: The government doesn't need to raise taxes if it's taken out of areas that's considered to be wasteful spending.
1.4.2.3. Con: Taxes aren't voluntary, so some people are not going to like funding something \(in this case science\) they don't want.
1.4.2.4. Con: Tax raises harm the economy, which in turn might lead to declining tax revenues due to reduced economic growth or a high unemployment rate, so less money's left for science.
1.4.2.4.1. Pro: Companies are likely to cut down on their employees because of increase in costs. This makes it less likely for people to fund their own personal scientific projects.
1.4.2.4.2. Pro: Business owners are likely to move their operations to other countries, decreasing employment and tax revenue in the original country they were based in too.
1.4.3. Con: Scientific progress can cause new economic developments, leading to a net benefit for the areas that would get alienated from funding science.
1.4.4. Con: Science funding is pathetically small compared to nearly evey other budget topic. Cutting science to buttress something else is a a nonsensical claim. Further, We do not need to choose an either/or regarding science funding. Government, corporations, and non-profits should all be viable options for science funding.
1.5. Con: We don't need a separate source of funding for science when other industries already cover it.
1.5.1. Pro: Defense spending creates useful scientific discoveries.
1.5.1.1. Pro: The [first digital programmable computer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer#History), Colossus, and the first modern computer, the ENIAC, were built through defense spending for WW2 to crack German code.
1.5.1.2. Con: For many advanced developments in defense to take place, prior scientific advancements are needed to provide the background research work for them.
1.5.2. Con: Industries are unlikely to spend on "pure research" which do not have a specific profit making output planned. Therefore, it is better to utilize government funding to deliver science that businesses won't do.
1.5.2.1. Con: The government is not very efficient with taxpayer money, so it is likely that if scientific research was taken over by private institutions, the same research could be done at a much lower cost.
1.5.3. Pro: Destructive sectors \(like [defense](http://www2.itif.org/2014-defense-rd.pdf)\) typically transition to science if given enough budget and time. Prioritizing scientific funding could make these destructive industries worse \(as then they won't be able to\), which is a riskier move.
1.5.3.1. Pro: The conflicts generated from their low-budget destructiveness would force scientists to constantly counteract its preventable downsides, which would be a waste of money and focus from real, futuristic needs and developments. So it's better to help these industry transition towards science, for peace and opportunity to innovate productively instead.
1.5.3.1.1. Con: Sometimes this doesn't work, as instead of focusing on science, they use the funds to carry on their activities instead \(like in the military with [ARPA-E](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-04/military-spending-on-r-d-is-a-boon-for-the-private-sector), for instance\).
1.5.3.1.2. Pro: For instance, the food industry creates much destructiveness due to being [outdated](https://cbey.yale.edu/our-stories/usda-squeezes-the-food-industry-with-outdated-subsidies). However, if we help it reach a point where it becomes a scientific endeavor \(like developing [futuristic ideas](https://sustainablefoodtrust.org/articles/vertical-farming-and-hydroponics-on-the-spectrum-of-sustainability/)\), then science doesn't have to go out of its way to counteract its downsides \(like [climate change](http://www.foodsystemprimer.org/food-production/food-and-climate-change/)\) when it's preventable.
1.5.3.1.3. Pro: Without solving the destructiveness first, there would be no environment for science to work in. That's why resolving and limiting destruction comes as a priority before science.
1.5.3.2. Pro: Some of the discoveries made by defense spending were defining moments of civilization as we know it.
1.5.3.2.1. Con: Science has opened new doors for research for cancer, rare diseases, profitable materials, and other things that could benefit the government. Getting more information on these causes could benefit our society and if we do find the cures for cancer, other countries will want the cure and help the US economically by exporting the medicine or informing them of the treatment. The US's reputation could improve with our scientific advancements if the government funds more research.
1.5.3.2.2. Con: When the military made achievements, it was from the scientific R&D innovation that the government specifically funded, not non-scientific military efforts per se. It's the allocation of government's military budget towards science that will lead to more defining moments more than giving it to them unspecified will.
1.5.3.2.2.1. Pro: Military spending on R&D helps spur private-sector R&D and innovation, leading to indirect, 'secondary' innovation.
1.5.3.2.2.2. Pro: Whenever an opponent was seen as gaining an advantage, the military would use 'offset strategies' by funneling R&D into the military. This has lead to defining [technologies](https://publicpolicy.wharton.upenn.edu/live/news/1833-the-us-military-a-crisis-of-innovation/for-students/blog/news.php) for humanity like nuclear in the first offset, guidance systems \(like GPS\) in the second, and robotics, 3D printing, and big data the third.
1.5.3.2.2.3. Pro: In the US, a momentous \(compared to other countries\) [almost 60%](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-04/military-spending-on-r-d-is-a-boon-for-the-private-sector) of total public science R&D spending went to military. So while the military contributes to discoveries, it does it through science \(funded by the government\), rather than the military's activities in general.
1.5.3.2.2.4. Pro: Although the military does influence technological development, it did so the most in the [2nd half of the 20th century](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0169721810020137): not by traditional war-like activities, but rather through transitioning massive funding \(by the government\) to 'R&D and procurement in “peacetime”' instead.
1.5.3.2.3. Con: Sharing scientific discoveries with other countries has led and leads to more peaceful relations with them.
1.5.3.2.3.1. Pro: In recent history, mankind has frequently been collaborating on extensive research infrastructures involving large financial efforts. Examples are the [ISS](https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/cooperation/index.html), [CERN](https://home.cern/sites/home.web.cern.ch/files/2018-07/CERN-Brochure-2017-002-Eng_0.pdf) \(pg [30](https://home.cern/sites/home.web.cern.ch/files/2018-06/AnnualReport2017EN.pdf#page=30)\), and similar facilities which can only be operated through cooperation which supports the argument that different nations can collaborate if needed when it comes to joint research.
1.6. Con: The science field gets plenty of money, so they don't really need more.
1.6.1. Pro: Science is already heavily funded by both government and non-government organizations, especially in the US, despite the limitness of the budget.
1.6.2. Con: With government funding, there would be more money for every field of science and be able to buy more materials needed to make discoveries and breakthroughs.
1.6.2.1. Pro: Science is an expensive field and can consist of expensive technology. It needs extra funding to cover these larger costs that regular funding won't help with \(just is for the basics\).
1.6.2.1.1. Con: The biggest advancements in science where achieved when less or no government was available. Science has become so much more expensive as a result of government funding: not because science itself is more expensive, but instead due to government intervention. It's best to leave government out to keep costs low instead of putting science in a position to require more funding from them, because they drive up the costs.
1.6.3. Pro: There are other places where the funding would be more impactful.
1.6.3.1. Pro: -> See 1.5.3.2.
1.6.3.2. Pro: Scientific [R&D](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/randd.asp) is recently becoming inefficient \(due to [increasing resource costs per innovative return](https://hbr.org/2012/10/is-the-cost-of-innovation-falling)\), so it may be better allocated to where it would be more impactful.
1.6.3.2.1. Pro: We already have a lot of information from the past's scientific findings. It's ok to work with what we have instead of spending money on research that we won't be able to look at \(because we haven't even finished going through the data we've already collected\).
1.6.3.2.1.1. Pro: This is especially true with big data, where now we have more data than we can process, let alone [understand \(to process\)](https://www.networkworld.com/article/2973963/5-problems-with-big-data.html) at such a large scale.
1.6.3.2.1.1.1. Pro: This is happening in the [biomedical field](https://www.kqed.org/futureofyou/291159/explosion-of-big-data-but-scientists-cant-keep-up).
1.6.3.2.1.2. Pro: Even in the future, we'll have more [data than the internet now just for astronomy alone](https://schooledbyscience.com/big-datas-changing-astronomy/). If we keep going at this pace, we'll just have a lot of data, but not many insights, due to the lack of abilities to process it all.
1.6.3.2.1.3. Con: This is ok, because people are creating [algorithms](http://people.seas.harvard.edu/~minilek/cs229r/fall15/index.html) to process all of it, so scientists should be able to keep up with all the incoming information that comes in.
1.6.3.2.1.4. Con: Even if we can't look and go over all of it now, it'll still give us lots of insights that we wouldn't be able to see had we not looked at it.
1.6.3.2.1.4.1. Pro: Because the information's there, there might be a chance that someone sees something in it and makes a discovery by looking at the large picture. We never know until we try.
1.6.3.2.1.5. Con: Even if we can't look at it now, there may be a day when future scientists do look at the data. So we can just produce it for them until then \(as it takes a long time/effort to make\), so that they don't have to do it themselves.
1.6.3.2.1.5.1. Pro: This is good, because the level of work needed to examine all the data is so much that it wouldn't work if that time's taken to collect it. So it works better that we over-collect than under-collect.
1.6.3.2.2. Pro: It may be better to look for ways to be [more efficient and reduce costs](https://www.processexcellencenetwork.com/business-process-management-bpm/articles/5-strategies-to-reduce-cost-and-increase-efficienc), for [greater productivity](https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/pharmaceuticals-and-medical-products/our-insights/the-road-to-positive-r-and-38d-returns), rather than just increasing funding without oversight into the inherent problems that's plaguing scientific pursuits from being sought-after or investible.
1.6.3.2.2.1. Pro: [Increasing funding doesn't always resolve problems](https://www.strategy-business.com/article/00295?gko=b91bb), so looking for other methods will help any funding that emerge be used productively.
1.6.3.2.3. Con: Governments can fund scientific fields other than pharmaceutical research.
1.6.3.2.4. Con: When industries get too expensive/complicated, funding could switch to cheaper scientific fields instead of leaving science altogether.
1.6.3.2.4.1. Pro: When costs start to decline for technological advances, then they could switch back to the industry they were originally in, as the costs should be cheaper by then.
1.6.3.2.4.1.1. Con: For scientists, switching between fields \(due to funding moving back-and-forth between them\) require different skills and have its own costs.
1.6.3.2.4.1.1.1. Pro: Scientists will have to apply for new jobs which can be [expensive](https://www.resumetarget.com/blog/when-did-free-job-hunting-get-so-expensive/).
1.6.3.2.4.1.1.2. Pro: Switching to a new field will require scientists to have a new degree in the field.
1.6.3.2.4.1.1.2.1. Pro: Scientists are likely to lose their income while studying since they will not be working.
1.6.3.2.4.1.1.3. Pro: Scientists would not earn money during the time they are making a switch.
1.6.3.2.5. Pro: This is happening already, as seen in the [pharmaceutical industry](https://3c1703fe8d.site.internapcdn.net/newman/gfx/news/hires/2014/lackofnewdru.jpg). If we remove funding from science, then we have a chance of prevent wasteful spending before it's too late.
1.6.3.2.6. Con: This is because we’ve solved the easy problems. We should expect science to get harder, and to invest more in it. Science has been the greatest source of human progress bar nothing.
1.6.3.2.7. Con: If we don't invest in and do the research that's inefficient, it won't be able to lead us to 'opening doors for' research areas that are more efficient. So it is efficient in the end, but it's hard to see, but the impacts aren't directly shown through the inefficient industry.
1.6.3.2.7.1. Pro: This is most useful for the 'jumpstart' initiatives, where the first step is something we won't need, but leads to better \(like space tourism is not really needed, but would provide the economic stimulus towards civilization in space\).
1.6.3.3. Con: While government expenditures can be destructive to society \(in cost-benefit - like spending on something people don't want or is destructive\), science is probably one of the least risky of this issue.
1.6.3.3.1. Pro: -> See 1.3.1.
1.6.3.3.2. Pro: Primary research allows us to understand our world in a deeper way. This is often very costly financially, but is an important part of broadening the way we understand the world.
1.6.3.3.2.1. Pro: With physics research, the recent discoveries by the $1.1 billion [LIGO](https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/system/media_files/binaries/300/original/ligo-fact-sheet.pdf), which confirmed the existence of gravitational waves, is a good example of this.
1.6.3.3.3. Pro: Government programs normally are not as efficient due to misaligned incentives of those who are responsible. However scientific advancement through public programs has been successful in the past \(and even when it might not be, it still leads to something: economical commercialization, motivation in scientists for better research, etc.\).
1.6.3.3.4. Con: -> See 1.5.3.
1.6.3.4. Pro: Making sure the economy is robust and well funded should be of a higher priority.
1.6.3.4.1. Pro: A robust and well funded economy allows for more governmental budget for science, so it should be the first focus.
1.6.3.4.1.1. Pro: Industrial innovation comes from industries having greater depth, skilled trade, tools, and resources in the business and industrial sector.
1.6.3.4.1.1.1. Pro: Taxing businesses too much to fund pure science might decrease technological innovation rather than increase it.
1.6.3.4.1.1.1.1. Pro: Taxation of both corporate and personal income [negatively affects](https://www.nber.org/reporter/2018number3/stantcheva.html) the quantity, quality, and location of innovation of the individual inventor and firm levels, where it's more needed \(due to better customizing and applying\) than at a larger level that the government would typically provide.
1.6.3.4.1.1.2. Pro: Some of the greatest technological transformation in history came from the [industrial revolution](https://www.britannica.com/event/Industrial-Revolution) lead by both industrialists and scholars, not scholars alone.
1.6.3.4.1.2. Pro: A larger and more profitable business sector brings more taxes to government which then can flow down to universities.
1.6.3.5. Con: It's a positive to a country's image when they're funding and contributing to science, because it shows that they are making the world a better place to live in, which is looked up to, more than other fields.
1.6.3.5.1. Pro: Improving a country's image would boost their reputation, which is a positive for their standing in the world around them.
1.6.3.5.1.1. Pro: An increase in scientific reputation would show the country is a top place to stay for high-tech scientific careers \(due to funding for laboratories, etc.\). This would bring in high quality people to develop and elevate the quality-of-life of its own citizens.
1.6.3.5.2. Pro: Countries need to stay competitive and relevant in the globalized era and with accelerating technological progress internationally and government funding science could provide the means to do so.
1.6.3.6. Con: Government funding for science would influence efficiency in other areas.
1.6.3.7. Pro: -> See 1.1.9.
1.6.4. Con: It doesn't need more money now, but should be able to get more if they need it one day too.
1.7. Con: More funding wouldn't be worth it if the money goes to waste: creating issues, not used, poor allocation, misapplication, etc.
1.7.1. Pro: The funding of scientific research may start with good intentions but its ideal outcome can end up abused when placed into reality.
1.7.1.1. Pro: Keeping scientific funding low will prevent the potential negative consequences from getting too large.
1.7.1.1.1. Con: There are inherent risks for everything. So if the benefits outweigh the risks by a significant amount, we should proceed and just work on the issues that pop up as they occur \(instead of worrying about it and not getting anything done because of the small chance something can go wrong\).
1.7.1.2. Con: Science should get extra funding to look into better alternatives \(like thorium reactors to prevent weaponizing its fuel\) and protections \(like barriers to entry\) to prevent potential issues from occurring.
1.7.1.3. Pro: Scientific progress and discoveries can very well be used in a destructive way, e.g., new weapon technology.
1.7.1.3.1. Pro: The latest research \(physics\) in first half of the 20th century lead to the creation of the [atomic bomb](https://www.britannica.com/technology/atomic-bomb/Development-and-proliferation-of-atomic-bombs).
1.7.1.3.1.1. Con: Although yes, within the first half of the 20th century the creation of the atomic bomb and other means of warfare have been created, you can't exclude the creation of technology which has helped to better the advancement of mankind such as medical treatments. [hopkinsmedicine.org](https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/treatment-tests-and-therapies/nuclear-medicine#:~:text=Nuclear%20medicine%20is%20a%20specialized,combination%20of%20many%20different%20disciplines.), [radiologyinfo.org](https://www.radiologyinfo.org/en/info.cfm?pg=gennuclear)
1.7.1.3.2. Pro: Nuclear reactors that are meant to generate energy for household have a potential to be weaponized due to the fuel source used.
1.7.2. Pro: Research should be prioritized to which ideas will bring the most positive outcome for the society instead of just funding anything that science-based, as it may end up not being that useful \(i.e. have little practical benefit, like learning theories, finding fossils of monster-sized animals on the ocean floor, etc.\). Instead, funding frivolous projects will come at a sacrifice to more meaningful ones that provide greater benefits to us.
1.7.3. Pro: It would add more data into the world, which may create [information overload](https://www.interaction-design.org/literature/article/information-overload-why-it-matters-and-how-to-combat-it).
1.7.3.1. Con: Vastly more data will inevitably be created by companies and billions of individuals in the developing world starting to use information technology anyway.
1.7.3.2. Con: The world's capacity to process and store data is increasing exponentially. So information overload shouldn't happen, at least [computationally](https://www.seagate.com/files/www-content/our-story/trends/files/idc-seagate-dataage-whitepaper.pdf).
1.7.3.3. Con: The mere creation of data does not lead to an information overload; the way this data is being processed and handled does.
1.7.3.4. Pro: We know everything we need to know to get by. Anything else \(like learning more of what we don't know through science\) is superfluous to our survival.
1.7.3.5. Pro: -> See 1.6.3.2.1.
1.7.4. Pro: Science does end up [serving commercial interests](https://www.nasa.gov/offices/ipp/home/myth_tang.html) for the good of society, so having full independence form it is unproductive. Just during the scientific process is a necessity, but any findings should be given to the public for commercialization too.
1.7.4.1. Pro: Allowing science to avoid serving the economic needs of a country causes science to serve ideology, instead of the public good. This would be a waste of money, and counterproductive, especially for the times when science is created on purpose to elevate the everyday lives of people and spur the economy.
1.7.5. Con: Many discoveries that have changed the world have come about by accident in the process of researching something else \(such as [x-rays](https://www.sciencealert.com/these-eighteen-accidental-scientific-discoveries-changed-the-world) and [the microwave](http://www.nbcnews.com/id/38870091/ns/technology_and_science-innovation/t/greatest-accidental-inventions-all-time/#.Xv5R65NKhR0)\). Therefore, it is difficult to know what research investment is wasteful beforehand, and it is likely that by investing more in research, more momentous discoveries will come about 'accidentally'.
1.7.6. Con: In the last 40 years, development went from analog communication systems to robotics \(cybernetics, bionics, etc. where even they become citizens, like [Sophia](https://www.dw.com/en/saudi-arabia-grants-citizenship-to-robot-sophia/a-41150856)\). Science is still lagging behind in space research, as we can see the number of manned space launches decrease when compared to 1960-1975. Now that science specialized into branches, and it's possible to know what to fund, as the lagging ones could be compared to the faster ones as well as the pace of societal advancement.
1.8. Con: Government funding typically has strings attached. Government-sponsored scientific research reflects the biases, preferences, and priorities of its leaders \(Moran, 1998\). The state uses science to further its social and political purposes.
1.9. Pro: Government funding can improve the quality of basic research more than the private sector can.
1.9.1. Con: Political interests have a negative impact on research projects.
1.9.1.1. Pro: Politicians need a positive public opinion to get reelected. They might break down and stop certain research if the public pressure is too high; private companies are less vulnerable to that.
1.9.1.2. Pro: [A study](https://thinkprogress.org/top-scientists-say-that-political-pressure-is-undermining-their-research-72655091a153/) evaluating responses from 7000 researchers from four US government agencies found that a significant number of scientists reported that political interests at their agencies were given too much weight.
1.9.1.2.1. Pro: [46 percent of respondents](https://thinkprogress.org/top-scientists-say-that-political-pressure-is-undermining-their-research-72655091a153/) said political interests hampered their ability to carry out their goals.
1.9.1.2.2. Pro: [Participating scientists reported](https://thinkprogress.org/top-scientists-say-that-political-pressure-is-undermining-their-research-72655091a153/) that scientific decisions were being swayed by politics or that political influence inhibited their ability to carry out agency missions.
1.9.2. Pro: Privately funded science only promotes scientific advancements that benefit corporations. Public, governmental funding on the other hand is allocated democratically and therefore benefits everyone.
1.9.2.1. Pro: The private sector is 'private', meaning that they're not going to give their information out freely like the government \(at most a bit here and there, which isn't as much of a value as getting the 'complete picture'\).
1.9.3. Pro: Some important scientific research projects are too big for corporations to risk investing in on their own, but are supported instead by the government.
1.9.3.1. Pro: Commercial development usually follows breakthroughs, because that's [difficult](https://journals.plos.org/ploscompbiol/article?id=10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002712) as-is, let alone initiate scientific development \(where the risks/rewards are normally too unknown to be worth the effort\).
1.9.3.2. Pro: There is [corporate welfare for R&D](https://theinformedvermonter.com/662-2/), meaning that the government's help \(like subsidies\) is needed to make scientific progress through businesses successful and possible. So it complements, rather than replaces the government.
1.9.3.3. Pro: Some of the research projects that were too expensive and risky for corporations to invest in \(but not governments\) were [particle accelerators](https://www.energy.gov/science/articles/department-energy-announces-10-million-particle-accelerator-research), [nuclear fusion](http://www.digitaljournal.com/tech-and-science/science/usa-budget-bill-doubles-funding-for-iter-nuclear-fusion-project/article/518441), and [observatories](https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/ffrdclist/).
1.9.4. Con: Government may use funding allocation to bias fields of science by picking and choosing which studies to fund.
1.9.4.1. Pro: For instance, the US government refuses to fund gun violence research but not car accident research.
1.9.5. Con: The transfer of applications from R&D findings into use happens [more quickly](http://discovermagazine.com/2007/oct/sciences-worst-enemy-private-funding) than with public funding.
1.9.6. Pro: Private enterprises prefer exclusive rights to their work, and thus are unlikely to do basic/fundamental research \(or publish the key findings if they do\). Governments don't have this innate economic barrier, hence they are more likely to contribute to public knowledge base than the private sector would.
1.9.7. Pro: The government is a hub \(i.e. all in one place\), whereas the private sector is scattered. It creates unnecessary issues that could be prevented by having a central location for scientific advancement.
1.9.7.1. Pro: It's easier to find the research. It's much harder when there are many disconnected companies, from which it's harder to find who's doing what \(i.e. it takes more investigating to find info\).
1.9.7.2. Pro: If the government is the main entity for funding science, then they can prevent [duplication](https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/12/scientists-have-a-sharing-problem/383061/) from happening by knowing which projects they're funding or already funded.
1.9.7.3. Pro: The government setting a [standard for sharing data](https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/12/scientists-have-a-sharing-problem/383061/) could be beneficial.
1.9.7.3.1. Pro: The government could set up a "[centralized digital storage space](https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/12/scientists-have-a-sharing-problem/383061/)" both to make it easier for scientists to save money, but even more important, share data more easily, as it's in one location for everyone to access it at.
1.9.7.3.2. Pro: More data on methods could be published to avoid inefficiencies.
1.9.7.3.2.1. Pro: When scientists share their materials and methods more, then there's less trial and error towards replicating it \(especially to confirm that the original research was correct, as that's fundamental to science\).
1.9.7.3.2.2. Pro: This prevents those who are working on the same research project from needing to continue if they find out another research group had the same method.
1.9.7.4. Con: The decentralized nature of the private sector ensures that not all discoveries are in the hands of a few mighty people and their discretion.
1.9.7.5. Con: A central location where all the data is stored is more vulnerable to hacking compared to many scattered locations, e.g., by other hostile governments.
1.9.8. Pro: The public does not get to be the overseers nor be a part of the process as with the government \(as they're not paying for it anymore\).
1.9.8.1. Con: Scientific research funding's not doing well under the public's oversight. At least the private sector is an option in helping out.
1.10. Con: There's so much progress that's being done without much \(or any\) money, that we don't need much funding to advance science.
1.10.1. Pro: Scientists don't need many resources for future experiments, as they can just use previous projects' wisdom and equipment to build upon \(instead of investing in new resources to accomplish this\).
1.10.1.1. Pro: Meta-analyses just examine the overall picture from research already conducted - to draw a conclusion out of it. Not much [money](http://ihttps://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0050184) needs to be spent to examine the articles as much as conducting the experiments themselves.
1.10.1.2. Con: Scientists need salaries. A large part of government subsidies to science are salaries to competent scientists which can be very high.
1.10.2. Con: Any research that develops into a new area of innovation will require new materials that cost money, as they won't currently exist.
1.10.2.1. Pro: Fundamental research can produce paradigm shifts that unlock whole new industries. These industries, in turn, will lead to new research into them, which will require new funding.
1.10.2.1.1. Pro: [Transistors](https://www.rohm.com/electronics-basics/transistors/history-of-transistors) led to the development of the electronics industry.
1.10.2.1.2. Pro: [Rocketry](https://www.space.com/29295-rocket-history.html) developed the space industry.
1.10.2.1.3. Pro: Photovoltaic and battery chemistry were used to develop renewable energy [grids](https://www.intechopen.com/books/special-topics-in-renewable-energy-systems/renewable-energy-integration-with-energy-storage-systems-and-safety).
1.10.3. Con: Society needs progress at a certain pace and since most of science needs large amounts of money to keep up, it should get more to keep up.
1.10.3.1. Pro: The[CERN large hadron collider](https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2012/07/05/how-much-does-it-cost-to-find-a-higgs-boson/#7c845fc33948) which found the Higgs Boson, costed 4.75 billion dollars for its construction alone.
1.10.3.2. Pro: Operating costs of important research institutions are very high.
1.10.3.2.1. Pro: If science want to attract smart people into science instead of losing them to other jobs, science needs competitive salaries.
1.10.3.2.2. Pro: One of the top leading research institution, [the CERN](https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexknapp/2012/07/05/how-much-does-it-cost-to-find-a-higgs-boson/#7c845fc33948), had an annual budget for personnel alone of 700.7M USD in 2018 \(685 100 000 CHF [page 30](https://cds.cern.ch/record/2652956/files/English.pdf)\)
1.10.3.3. Pro: The [cost](https://www.policymed.com/2014/12/a-tough-road-cost-to-develop-one-new-drug-is-26-billion-approval-rate-for-drugs-entering-clinical-de.html) to develop a new drug Is $2.6 Billion with an approval rate of less Than 12%.
1.10.4. Pro: -> See discussion #8035: Citizen Science is beneficial to science.
1.10.5. Pro: With technology, much of what used to cost money is now free or cheap. So what used to need funds for research and building projects don't need the funds anymore.
1.10.5.1. Pro: -> See 1.10.4.
1.10.5.2. Pro: With the internet, what used to take many long calculations by hand, can be done by the computer.
1.10.5.3. Pro: With [automation](https://www.inboundlogistics.com/cms/article/saving-time-and-money-through-automation/), what used to take a lot of money doesn't anymore.