What are some of the most compelling arguments for (supporting) the public funding of science/innovation/works-which-go-in-academic-journals?
I'm not sure how the responses look like because this is my second (free) question, but I will set a word limit of 50 words. Up to one outside reference (eg: paper, web article) can be made, but the idea must be summarised in the response. The response should summarise 1 idea only.
I will award Ṁ100 to the most compelling response given the space or 50/50 if there are two equal responses.
I will split Ṁ150 between the next 3-5 most compelling responses.
I will announce when the market will be closed 1 week prior.
If this market works ok I may make the opposite side, which are reasons against.
If there are too many responses I will have to reduce the number somehow.
I'll make the obvious argument: science and innovation produce public goods, and historically private interests can't be trusted, either to fund public goods (including on-average highly profitable research!) or to fairly provide access to those goods, once produced. Thus the public is the only option for funding.
If you have a cabinet level agency that gives out funding, typically (not always) the heads of that know a lot about science and what would be good to give grants to. They can fund projects based on how successful they are, and they have a steady stream of income from taxes, as opposed to the whims of how much people want to spend personally.
Private funding might on average go to projects that get more attention, but they may or may not be the most pressing. A lot of science projects might be too complicated/esoteric to get enough private funding, but a public funding source run by scientists could fund it.