Government Should Not Fund Any Scientific Research Whose Consequences Are Unclear

Technological progress over the past several centuries has had a complex impact on our society. On the one hand, it improves living standards through quality medical facilities, extends life expectancy, and links the world through faster transportation and communication. On the other hand, it gives humanity the most deadly weapons and weapons stores that can destroy the world itself, creating anxiety and fear.

This project aims to guarantee the quality of science. Researchers, government and tax funds taxpayers hope to produce and earn high quality research. Several developments such as the development of scientific systems and the difficulty of monitoring and reproducing all the studies have resulted in the use of research indicators (eg Abramo and D'Angelo, 2011). Indicators have become complex expressions of quality, but by definition, they are only "appropriate" representatives. However, "quality of science is hard to define and numbers are easy to see" (Benedictus & Miedema, 2016), financing and career decisions are often based on these indicators and are often confused as representatives. If funds and employment opportunities depend on indicators, researchers want to achieve the metrics of the indicators, so of course we will respond to that use.

Even if not all, look at important contemporary technologies. The first scientific research is mostly funded by the government program. In fact, Google itself is funded by the National Science Foundation. Nevertheless, the process of converting these findings into marketable products is historically slow, usually taking decades. The JCESR model provides a good blueprint for the future. Innovation is not about nodes, but always about networks, and we need to learn how to build these connections faster. Establishing a close partnership between government laboratories, academic institutions and private companies is key to maintaining our technology and competitive advantage.