Should Government Fund Science? 

If by Gov you mean tax payers, the answer is NO.

I was there last night for this debate and it was far more interested than I had hoped. It's the first Soho Debate in which I changed my vote. I learned a lot.

If they can figure out how to raise the money without stealing then have at it

It's at least obvious that the way funding is done now has deep problems and needs reform.

Transisters, IC and Lasers all from the private sector. Most academic research is a waste of money

[Govern] - from the Latin Verb "Guverno" meaning "To Control" [Ment] - from the Latin Noun "Mentis" meaning "Mind". Government means to CONTROL the MIND.

That was very nice. I struggled through the first 30 min as I disagreed so much with the speaker, but it was nice to have the back and forth.

No, no, AND NO! If you want science to be funded you're free to donate to scientific organizations. and to encourage others to do so as well. You are not free to force others to fund anything. The fact that some interesting and useful results have come from gov't funded sciences is irrelevant. It's like justifying slavery because of the benefits it provided to society. Anything the gov't does can be done better by few people behaving morally (without force & coercion). (I'm commenting before watching the video, I'm sure some of these points are addressed, but having looked at comments while we waiting for it to start i was disheartened by some of the immoral (violate the NAP) replies.

Gov is a manager of funds not leaders that can do anything it wants without the permission of the fund givers.

Should we fund the government ?

There have always been government funded universities, research projects, etc. Do you mean should the gov pay for the research and development of private companies that keep the financial proceeds for themselves?

I don't understand the argument of "Universities stealing all the good scientists". It implies you have a limited number, but more funding to the sector should be raising wages and incentiving more people to enter into research.

They should cut out the first 10 min

I think there was a real case for gov.funding BASIC research back in the era when private entities were too small. That impediment is considerably reduced in the 21st century, but not always. Controlled fusion and particle accelerators are examples of big-physics projects that may still government incentives. The James Webb telescope would likely never be privately funded. I really think we need to study means of altering the earth's albedo to control GW, but that's part science and part engineering; not basic research; the issue is that there is no clear way to get remuneration.

#1 - Gulf War research has been limited to herbal supplements. #2 - The VA does not provide ANY of the supplements shown to be helpful & doesn't provide any dosage information on the VA website. #3 - Most VA doctors don't know about Gulf War illnesses, are unaware of VA research, have never heard of the Gulf War, & tend not to refer patients to the relevant clinics. #4 - The "gadgets" provided by the pain clinic are prescribed based on the relationship to the vendors rather than on any research. Most of the research is done by patients out of frustration & desperation. Where is the benefit of this research?

I think the France+Germany Britian+USA comparison is unfouned. France didn't have coal, and coal is what drove the industrial revolution. Germany did of course have coal, but looking at Germany in 1940 and saying it has a lower GDP capita seems to be missing certain events... And Germany was an incredible source of innovation.

My opinion is we should scrap R&D tax credits, and create industrial institutes that allow forms to join in return for providing 1% of thier revenue to the institution. The government would match funding, and any patents filed would be available to all members. The board of directors would be selected by the firms, and they would determine what is researched. But, forms could fund their own projects for which they would recieve a patent, but with clear, cost return based rules on other members using the patent. And the Government could make grants available to encourage the firms to choose to research specific fields or technologies. This would alongside a prize system.

should government......NO

Private gain, distributed (public) loss.

In my research field, there doesn't seem to be much of privately funded research, and most of the time when private companies are acknowledged in papers, the presented work is applied. I bet those private companies cite that work as fundamental, but it isn't fundamental at all, but rather represents applications of fundamental concepts developed on public money to practical problems with no immediate practical outcomes. So how much in that 7% figure of privately funded research is made of this kind of work? The current structure of funding is problematic, but the shut down of governmental funding altogether isn't necessarily a solution, and I certainly agree with the point that the analysis based on the overall spendings from different sources and the economic growth does not capture many important details. While a specific fundamental study may not always lead to practical applications, it helps forming a world view, with which applied research can be conducted. Working with the private sector, especially in the present world where they are so heavily protected by lawyers and legislation, does not seem to incentivise such work now, and I don't know if it was better in the past. One more thing is whether or not the mentioned anticorrelation of government spendings on research and economic growth goes in hand with general centralisation of the government and reduced economic freedoms.

Government influence in science.

No.

No

The first speaker should not have used mRNA as a 'good' example. I regard it as a fundamentally dangerous technology. Similar in its risks to bioweapons but potentially even worse if it were used by the wrong people for the wrong reason.

The "budget" of Amazon is $45Billion - LOL - you need to learn to read a financial statement. Their entire net income for the past 4 quarters is

If I were a malicious actor, how could I leverage mRNA, with CRISPR-CAS9, Particularly with a johnson&johnson style carrier virus?

Congrats to Reason for hosting debates about controversial topics for libertarians. I'm what can be called a 'state capacity classical liberal'. I believe in models like Estonia or Singapure, with low taxes and quite business friendly, but still where government invests quite a lot on R&D

Some research can only be done under government funding but problem is not this after institute creates something new corporations like sharks buy cheaply this technology or product to sell 10x for profit. Without taking risks or initial investments. So funded by people for corporate profit and high prices

3:44

Reason really put here asking the hard hitting questions even the controlled opposition doesnt have the nerve to ask. Should children work full time, should government fund science, are parking laws out of control?

You misspelled propaganda

1 day ago

30:52 Entrepreneurial knowledge is tacit. Scientific knowledge is explicit.

there is 50 codes money gets put into and isn't it the world bank??

Of course government should fund science, but it should be voted on by the people what they find science for. It's undeniably true that the military and the government come up with majority of the new innovations that make it for the entrepreneurs of our society to then utilize and make affordable and achievable for the common man.

That is governments role. So many great discoveries came from social funding...we just need to keep the capitalists and monopolies in check

Yes.

Is Gene related to Jeffrey?