Certainly there can be dangers when government funds research, and especially when it's the military arm. But (democratic) governments at least have a purported

Certainly there can be dangers when government funds research, and especially when it's the military arm. But (democratic) governments at least have a purported interest in the public good, whereas other funding sources (i.e., private industry) do not. Whatever conflicts of interest government can create in science, private industry only magnifies them. And governments are more likely to fund basic research, which serves as a solid foundation for applied research that private industry tends to be more interested in. It's also ludicrous to suggest that government funding "crowds out" private science. Grants aren't "free money" -- you have to justify your costs and, you know, do the actual work. You have to provide status reports to demonstrate that you are doing the work. Government grants aren't welfare. There's certainly a debate that can be had with regard to how government funds science. How are grants determined? Which departments are the primary funders of research? How "equitably" are grant dollars spread out (i.e., is it a few large grants, or many small ones)? It's important to see this as part of the discussion regarding the health of a democracy. But public funding is absolutely a major force for good when it comes to scientific research. The idea that it turns it into some weird scientific "priesthood" is completely LUDICROUS.