Prompt: Many people believe that scientific research should be carried out and controlled by the governments rather than private companies. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this opinion? government protection over scientific research

The given idea argues that research in science should be implemented and monitored by the governments instead of private companies. I do not agree with that opinion. Generally, there are two main advantages when the private companies manipulated a study, being finance resource and discovery motivation. Ċ First of all, the government's budget is limited because they must share for all public activities over the nation. While the companies usually build up funds to invest in research and development for creating and improving products. As the fact that study projects in advanced countries have the trend using money from private organisation based on a cooperative agreement. So that, the financial burden on the national budget associated with science is reduced. Recently, the Asian developing countries have been applying this model in the national strategy of science. Ċ In addition, this cooperation is the important motivation for studying and applying into reality. Authorities must concentrate on their projects and ensure quality of outcomes because they have commitment to sponsors about applicability of these study. By contrast, if government covers all budget for researchers, they can become neglect and lack motivation because of no strict constraints. Formerly, scientific research in Vietnam mainly depend on government budget. Scientists can be approved easily to finish their project through a science council without concerning applicability. Therefore, individual sponsorship constraints is the suitable motivation for research and development. Ċ Consequently, I totally think that research in science should be operated independently by individual companies to boost applicability of scientific research.