Many people believe that scientific research should be carried out and controlled by governments rather than private companies. To what extent do you agree or disagree?

It is argued whether studies in scientific fields should rely on the state or private sector. While national launched projects tend to gain more breakthroughs, researches led by individual companies are promising as well. With abundant financial support, the official institutions are able to cover all material considerations needed.

Thus

, scientists could focus more on researches and experiments. What's more, most of the results or breakthroughs are crucial to a nation' s development, leading to a country's global stand. It is admirable to safeguard scientific experts and statistics on a national level.

Finally

, some areas are non-profitable,

for instance

, researches on astronauts, shuttles are less possible to be incorporated into common life.

Thus

, less attention would be paid to those fields. It is the duty of the government to help avoid inadequate development on them.

However

, to take scientific studies a fundamental issue is to overlook a range of equally serious matters.

For example

, more investments and funds are urgently needed in far-flung areas, where people encounter natural and social disasters with the least resources.

Therefore

, private-led programmes, if managed properly, could play a supplement role.

Firstly

, most of the researches are profit-related, which can be used in a more practical way. Strong motivations are aroused by the expectation to make more revenues by producing unique and advanced products.

Secondly

, firms usually obtain rich experience in specific areas, making them more accessible to new directions or ideas in their own fields. To sum up, it is advisable to conduct exclusive experiments with strong economic and safety support, while the joint efforts from private and public sectors could make profits more practical and higher efficient.