Science

Science is only as good as the dollar behind it. What I mean is that there is no point in doing scientific research if it can't be sold reasonable. --sure, some people might be doing research that benefits society or the globe, but money for research has to come from somewhere. for example: even if we discover a cure for cancer, how are we going to distribute the cure without investing money and making money off of it?
Enterprising is the real deal behind science. --I have heard several arguments about how it is unfair that people can make profits off of life-saving or life-important products (things that have become necessities in our modern life). But the reason why we are expected to pay for all of the expenses to bring us the product AND a little extra is because companies need to see growth.
From the very start, we do not have the correct distribution channels or manufacturing means to supply the world with a cancer curing product. When someone invests in this product to distribute it, they can only give so much.
Let's attach figures to this example because it will make it more clear:

Enough money is invested by someone to supply 100 people with a cancer cure. If they pay for it merely at the cost of the product (all inclusive) then at any given time only 100 people can have the cure for cancer. --let's say it's a pill you take after age 50. So only 100 people will be spared from cancer. Ever. But if they charge double the cost, then first 100 people, then 200, then 400, then 800, etc can have that cure.

This article isn't really about science, now is it? It's about profit. Profit has been on my mind lately, and really the above example isn't profit, it's growth. Profit, in my opinion, is really whatever is left AFTER growth.
Profit is what you get when you are someone and you invest your money.
Investing is merely taking a risk with your established means and hoping you get more money back.

Now what if that SOMEONE is a government. Government's a strange in that very few of them work on true principles of capitalism. If they were run like a business they would grow at a balanced rate based on population and they would have lots of money because they control a large area of investment. --no, the U.S. government primarily invests in a round about way: if we give you money and it helps you get more money then when we tax you on your higher income we will also get more money, hopefully more than we gave you in the first place; this thereby is their GROWTH.
But it doesn't work like that, especially when you throw in all sorts of tax deductions and funny IRS stuff. Corporations and large businesses usually find a way to screw the system though, kinda like the super coupon clipper mom who get's paid money back to shop at the grocery store or walks away with $300 worth of groceries for $10.
I am not an accountant, but as I explained above in the cancer pill example, if everyone did that there would still only be 100 people with the pills (or in this case government subsidies and benefits) and everyone else would be out of luck.

And as a side note (that you may not catch the significance of right away): of course businesses are going to take any free offers that the government gives them, that's how they stay competitive, but businesses aren't going to enter into a deal with the government that doesn't help themselves more than it helps the government--that is the rule of buisness: you only make deals if it helps you more than it helps them. [actually, that's not true, when you make trades and transactions that are not fluid (cash/money) then everything in the deal is relative and that's where you can make compromises. But when we're talking: I'll give you $300 to help you grow if you give me $600 after you've grown, then businesses are going to find every way around it so that instead of $600 they give back $10.==profit: $290