It is commonly believed that science ought to be developed by public officials instead of private firms. I fully disagree with this statement, and, in my opinion, independent companies are more efficient than public authorities in terms of research conduction.
The prime reason to adhere to the opinion that independent institutions are more appropriate to develop science is that they are prone to addressing fewer tasks simultaneously. While government is a large system that tackles many scientific challenges at once, private companies aim to solve one specific issue. For example, the laboratory of the medicine in Harvard is narrowly specialized in some spheres, while the National Committee of the Health Care is forced to allocate expenditures to achieve numerous goals. Hence, organizations accounted to the government are more dispersed and consequently are less likely to produce groundbreaking results.
The obligation of the government to manage all fundamental needs of a society is the second viable argument. Rarely do independent organizations take care of the people basic needs; however, the most significant mandate of the government is to fully cover pressing social challenges along with science. For instance, the US Educational Institution is unable to dedicate itself to science, since it has to provide all services to the American nation. Therefore, if private establishments had to be concerned about public problems, they mostly would be similarly incipient to support the current level of research conduction.
In conclusion, the responsibility for the population and diverse aspects which public authorities try to satisfy make it less favorable for science progress.