WHAT IS THE WAGES OF SCIENCE

In the United States, Congress approved, in February 2003, a 2003 budget increase for both the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. America is not alone - in vain - it is trying to compensate for big money markets and risk-free investors. In 1999, Chancellor Gordon Brown unveiled a $ 1.6 billion "development program for British science" and sold its products. This was more than $ 1 billion invested between 1998-2002. The budgets of the Medical Research Council and the Biological Sciences and Biological Sciences Research Council have quadrupled overnight. The University Challenge Fund was established to provide $ 1 billion to cover costs related to hiring management skills, acquiring intellectual property, modeling, or developing a business plan. Another $ 30 million has gone to launch funding for high-tech, high-risk companies in the UK. According to the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), the top 29 industrialized nations are investing in R&D more than R600 billion a year. Most of this money is provided by private companies. In the United Kingdom, for example, government spending is declining due to private equity, according to the British Venture Capital Association. More than $ 80 billion has been invested in 23,000 companies since 1983, almost half of which are in the advanced technology sector. These factories employ three million people. Investment increased by 36 percent in 2001 to $ 18 billion. But this British joy is different from the rest of the world. Even the hot health science industry fell by 11 percent in corporate investment in 2002, reports the MoneyTree Survey. According to Ernst & Young's 2002 Alberta Technology Report released in March 2003, the Canadian technology industry is faltering with less than $ 3 billion invested in seed money in 2002 - despite having similar funding and tax credit in many provinces. and federal government. In Israel, business revenue declined to $ 600 million in 2002 - one-fifth of its value in 2000. Recognizing this catastrophic change in investor sentiment, the Israeli government launched 24 hi-tech incubators. But these are able to partially provide for the pecuniary needs of less than 20 percent of project projects. Recognizing the negative effects of the withdrawal of private funds, governments are trying to restructure and reduce the economy. The New Jersey Commission for Health Education and Training has recently made a proposal to merge three public research universities. The lack of growing public and regional budgets could put additional pressure on already strained relations between education and government - especially on research priorities and scarce resource allocation. This conflict is inevitable because the interaction between technology and science is complex and incomprehensible. Other technological advances are introducing new fields of science - the metal industry has given birth to metallurgy, computers in computer science, and transistors to solid-state physics. Scientific discoveries also lead, albeit often interchangeably, to technological advances - consider examples of semiconductors and biotechnology. Therefore, it is safe to do so normally and to say that the technology sector is the only visible and attractive place for the hard ice of research and development. The military, universities, institutions, and industries around the world invest hundreds of billions a year in both basic and practical studies. But governments are the most important sponsors of pure science for a long time. Science is widely regarded as a social benefit - its benefits are shared. Reasonable people would do well to copy the results of their research - rather than duplicate it. The government should step in to give them incentives to innovate. Thus, in the minds of many ordinary people and many economists, science is closely associated with public-funded universities and defense institutions. New inventions such as jet aircraft and the internet are often cited as examples of the public benefits of publicly funded military research. The pharmaceutical, biomedical, information technology, and aerospace industries, for example - albeit very secretive - rely heavily on government-sponsored nonprofit science (i.e. public domain). The majority of the 501 companies surveyed by the Canadian Department of Finance and Revenue in 1995-6 reported that government subsidies had improved their internal flow of funds - a major consideration in the decision to conduct research and development. Most beneficiaries claim tax compensation for seven years and record employment growth. With no active financial markets and emerging capitalists, other developing countries have taken their place. In the Philippines, about 100 percent of all R&D is funded by the government. The decline in foreign direct investment - down by about three-quarters since 2000 - has made government participation more important. But this is not a worldwide practice. South Korea, for example, has been successful in transforming the private sector now - even after the 1997 Asian catastrophe and the 2001 global collapse - accounting for about four-fifths of all R&D spending. Therefore, support for the government's overall involvement in science is overwhelming. Most of the R&D used is still driven by private industrial assets. Even “pure” science - unchecked by selfishness and commerce - is sometimes marred by private gifts and basics. In addition, the channels of government involvement in research, universities, are partially linked to the growing prosperity. As Alison Wolf, a professor of education at the University of London, explains in her first article, “Is Education Important? Myths about Education and Economic Gro