[Rduke55]

I did edit my post to say "based on my views on profit-based science" - but i dind't make it in time, sorry.

In a nutshell, besides one of my original points that apllied science will always be more profitable than basic (this really should not be overlooked), we are currently having problems with the research performed by several of the major drug companies because they are preventing full access to the data - even to the people that originally ran the experiments. Many people believe that is because of the fact that some of the data is contradictory to earlier findings or in some other ways may hurt the bottom line. Also, they certainly keep some data under wraps because it's proprietary. That definitely goes against the free exchange of ideas I was talking about earlier.
How would we prevent this?

The free exchange of ideas is essential to good science. To use my favorite example, neuroscience has progressed far beyond where one person can work on many of the problems that are currently being researched. I have collaborations with a number of other scientists around the world. In my grants it states as a result of me being funded that my findings must be made freely available.

And this is one of the major philisophical differences I was talking about. I see science as very different from the marketplace, at least at the basic science level.