Here's the YouTube video on Reason's channel (event starts about 10 min in), or you can download it at the link for this post.
There's no text transcription AFAIK, so I'll try my best to represent both sides fairly. I do have my own opinions here, so I recommend you watch the video (at least the opening remarks, which is ~35 min long, just after introductions).
Here's the prompt:
Government must play a role in fostering scientific and technological progress by funding basic research.
The definition of "basic research" is a bit squishy, but the definition they seem to be going with is science without a specific goal, such as studying chemistry not to solve a given program, but to see where the research goes. The opposite is "mission science," which is research in a given area to achieve some specific goal important to the government, like weapons. They both agreed that the latter should be funded as needed (e.g. COVID-19 vaccine).
For the affirmative (Dr. Mills):
- private companies have little interest in basic research
- government funded basic research has produced immense value (example given: ammonia composition, which wasn't economically useful for 100 years so likely wouldn't have happened as quickly)
- government funded research is often economically viable, but more importantly, it has non economic value that private research doesn't provide (e.g. man on the moon)
For the negative (Dr. Kealey):
- publicly funded research "crowds out" private research (i.e. public research doesn't add more scientists, it just moves them from private to public sector)
- private research is more economically viable
- private companies need to fund research or they'll lose to their competition
And some prompts for discussion:
- What is your opinion on the prompt, should the government be funding basic research?
- Who do you think won? Do you agree with the voting? Why?
- If you're against the resolution, would you go further and prefer to not fund "mission science" as well? Why or why not?
- Should your government increase or decrease the amount it's spending on basic science research?
And a final question: do you want to see more of this kind of post?
Mission science vs basic research is kind of sidelined with that prompt though, which kind of bothered me. Preventing government from fostering basic research is the natural conclusion from that question. As in: the inverse is "Government must not play a role..." and that line of thinking doesn't have much merit, IMO.