> Wouldn't it be fair that tax payers also get something in return of their funding? What's the purpose of scientific funding: to progress science or to make m

> Wouldn't it be fair that tax payers also get something in return of their funding? What's the purpose of scientific funding: to progress science or to make money? If the goal is altruistic progression of science, then undoubtedly that's best accomplished through free, nearly-unrestricted publication. That includes both work on nonpatentable fields (fundamental science, or advances too remote from commercialization for a patent timeframe to be viable) and not aggressively pursuing the full suite of IP protections for work that may be patentable. If the goal is to make money, why should there be public funding in the first place? We don't ordinarily expect the government to run business ventures, and treating science funding like a Bell Labs writ large would be just such a business venture. On the balance, the situation described in this article appears to be close to an optimal outcome: foundational science happened at a university, but a corporation came in with deep pockets and significantly more funding to work on the commercialization process.