It is true that many people think governments should have more responsibilities for doing scientific research than private firms. Although this would put pressure on the national budget, I totally believe that disadvantages are outweighed by advantages.
On the one hand, investing in a project of scientific research would have an adverse effect on the expenditure of a country. Governments should fund a huge amount of money to conduct and carry out research in order to have a successful result. This means they need to cut down the funding from other fields such as education and social welfare for older people which play pivotal roles in the development of one country. Otherwise, authorities not only bring any benefits for science but also bring many severe consequences.
On the other hand, governments should have sole direction in conducting scientific research compared to private enterprises. If a scientific project is run by authorities, its credibility will increase since, nowadays, there are many firms only carrying out research due to their benefits. Pharmaceutical companies, for example, tend to provide financial support for clinical trials that bring interest in their marketing strategies, which is gathering evidence and data on the safety of their products to build the trust of customers. In addition, without the control of governments, many private companies could do illegal research related to unethical human experimentation, thereby posing a threat to society. As a result, in order to avoid the drawbacks of a scientific project, it is only allowed to be run by authorities.
In conclusion, despite the fact that funding is a problem for authorities to tackle, I completely hold the opinion that the drawbacks are eclipsed by the mentioned merits. However, the two groups could collaborate with the purpose of a productive outcome.