Scientific research had better be carried out by private money than by government funding. In most developed countries, scientific research spending comes from private companies rather than from governments, especially if the research results are mainly profit-motivated. It is because the private incentive causes researchers to concentrate their energies on projects which are perceived as likely to generate profit in return, whereas the government-sponsored research is often limited in spending, for good reasons.
    There are disadvantages to scientific research privately funded, of course. Critics hold that such research results may benefit only a single "interest group" instead of being publicly shared. That is to say that scientific research is done for profit, and not necessarily for the common good. Thus, when it comes to doing research about "pure sciences"--biology, chemistry and physics, government funding is essential because private companies are probably not so interested. Generally speaking, government-sponsored research projects are important in that they often go beyond the scope of isolated private researchers. That also explains why in specific areas like military technology and hard science, funding relies exclusively on governments so that the innovated ideas should not be controlled by private companies.
    However, there are probably more advantages to allowing, even encouraging, private sectors to be freely engaged in scientific research projects. The benefits are especially obvious in a climate of austerity since government funding is often scarce. As usual, private companies could be motivated to invest in scientific research of perhaps commercial value in a profit-driven economy. Besides, it is true that private companies hiring free scientific minds are usually more efficient and proficient than government organizations which tend to impose lengthy and frustrating regulations to monitor research projects. In comparison, private companies that support scientific research have a clear purpose: profit. Consequently, they are more willing to spend more than government-funded non-profit research agencies.
    Along with the most brilliant brains, money is the most dominating factor in carrying out successful scientific research projects. Although it is always important for governments to focus on scientific projects to seek knowledge for its own sake and for high-tech national defense; ultimately, private companies could share the major financial responsibility in making a difference in various research projects. Needless to say, public funding for scientific research seems never enough to rock and roll. (Essay created by Jeenn Lee Hsieh)
    》貓頭鷹回憶中國考區(qū)2012-06-14雅思真題：
    Many people believe that scientific research should be carried out and controlled by the government rather than private companies. To what extent do you agree or disagree? Give reasons for your opinion and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.
    謝振禮老師編號8258范文：
    1. As can be argued, government rules can easily become obstacles to scientific achievements.
    2. Usually, most of the world's headline-making scientific discoveries do not come through governmental establishments, admitting that fiscal funding is often essential to helping such success to happen in the private sector. 3. It is false to suggest that the government should carry out and control scientific research because the issue is not only about money but also brains.
    1. Just because public funds matter, it does not follow that the government should restrict that kind of freedom of thinking which is vital to imaginative minds.
    2. Apart from that, nothing is more naive than for the government to play the role of police and rule research activities. 3. Yes, freedom--that is how scientific breakthroughs are born.
    4. It goes without saying that probably billions of government's money may be needed to carry out research projects in various scientific fields, but it must be considered that great scientists tend to ignore, or even go against the rules.
    5. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how many scientific discoveries could have been missed as a result of unnecessary regulations.
    6. To put it strongly, public control is the death of scientific research.
    1. Scientific research should not be forced in any event.
    2. It is because a research problem is less likely to be solved by any apparatus which money can buy than to be solved by the brains of a free head that money cannot always buy.
    3. Thus, it does not seem proper for official amateurs to "know" what on earth scientists are doing.
    4. Otherwise, it would not be called "research" in the real sense of the word.
    5. Trying to heavily monitor scientific brains is perhaps a dangerous attitude since the consequence is always too much foliage and too little fruit.
    6. That can explain in part why the government ought to shift most of the pledged fiscal spending from the public to the private sector.
    1. All aspects taken into account, scientific research is two things: billions and brains.
    2. With little doubt, the success in a country's scientific discoveries relies on both sufficient funding from the government and on creative minds from private companies in which pure research is worth every penny it costs.
    3. All the government has to do is grant money and expect that somewhere, something incredible is going to be known. (Created by Jeenn Lee Hsieh)