Nowadays many researchers are being sponsored by private organizations. Do the advantages outweigh the disadvantages of this trend?

Recently the number of scientists supported by the non-governmental association has been proliferated, which I truly believe there are more benefits in this approach. On what do I base that assertion will be explained in the forthcoming paragraphs. Firstly, the most considerable advantage of privatization is said to be the flowering of the companies that allocate financial resources to research-based projects. This is because companies will receive a positive reputation if the research faces a profitable breakthrough, which has been proved as a powerful advertisement. Plus, intimidating by being bankrupt, triggers a relentless stream of effort and intense scrutiny to avoid any failure. Therefore, their success might be guaranteed, however ordinary, however small-scale. Furthermore, the academic Society will be more penchant to vast their studies with the assistance of entrepreneurs. To conclude, both scientists and the private sector are in a good relation as if they are in an alliance. In opposition to that, not being supervised by government authorities might cause nefarious missions, mass production of nuclear weapons to name one. This approach will cause competition amid companies in the non-public domain, which may lead them to be formidable opponents who are trapped in a vicious circle of defeating one another, whether it worth the resources they consume or not. In short, local legislators Should manage the firms which offer services to the researchers. To reciprocate, the pivotal role of private sponsors is both undeniable and inevitable. However, we cannot neglect the dark side of this trend. The unintended consequences of ignoring them would be unrecoverable, if we become blind to them.