But this is not a universal trend. South Korea, for instance, effected a successful transition to private venture capital which now - even after Asian turmoil of 1997 and global downturn of 2001 - amounts to four fifths of all spending on R&D.

Thus, supporting ubiquitous government entanglement in science is overdoing it. Most applied R&D is still conducted by privately owned industrial outfits. Even "pure" science - unadulterated by greed and commerce - is sometimes bankrolled by private endowments and foundations.

Moreover, conduits of government involvement in research, universities, are only weakly correlated with growing prosperity. As Alison Wolf, professor of education at University of London elucidates in her seminal tome "Does Education Matter? Myths about Education and Economic Growth", published last year, extra years of schooling and wider access to university do not necessarily translate to enhanced growth (though technological innovation clearly does).

Terence Kealey, a clinical biochemist, vice-chancellor of University of Buckingham in England and author of "The Economic Laws of Scientific Research", is one of a growing band of scholars who dispute intuitive linkage between state-propped science and economic progress. In an interview published last week by Scientific American, he recounted how he discovered that:

"Of all lead industrial countries, Japan - country investing least in science - was growing fastest. Japanese science grew spectacularly under laissez-faire. Its science was actually purer than that of U.K. or U.S. The countries with next least investment were France and Germany, and were growing next fastest. And countries with maximum investment were U.S., Canada and U.K., all of which were doing very badly at time."

The Economist concurs: "it is hard for governments to pick winners in technology." Innovation and science sprout in - or migrate to - locations with tough laws regarding intellectual property rights, a functioning financial system, a culture of "thinking outside box" and a tradition of excellence.

Government can only remove obstacles - especially red tape and trade tariffs - and nudge things in right direction by investing in infrastructure and institutions. Tax incentives are essential initially. But if authorities meddle, they are bound to ruin science and be rued by scientists.

Still, all forms of science funding - both public and private - are lacking.

State largesse is ideologically constrained, oft-misallocated, inefficient and erratic. In United States, mega projects, such as Superconducting Super Collider, with billions already sunk in, have been abruptly discontinued as were numerous other defense-related schemes. Additionally, some knowledge gleaned in government-funded research is barred from public domain.

When a good friend of mine inquired where he could obtain information about medical insurance for his out-of-state, elderly mother, I told him to try Internet.

He reported back to me about a week later, in desperation: "I am giving up, I am too confused." He had taken on an overwhelming project with his widowed mother, living in another state. As only child, and following sudden death of his father, it was his responsibility to care for his mother.

In this world of technology, family unit is often living in different geographical areas and family members are usually quite involved with their own lives, careers, and families. In addition, when both parents are alive, often one or both parents are quite independent and do not require a lot of assistance. As time goes on things, of course, change, and sometimes change very suddenly. There can be a crisis, with regard to health care needs of one or both aging parents.

With our baby boomers facing this problem in ever increasing numbers, and with information highway in full bloom, there is a definite need for planning.

Protecting your parent's assets and health is a huge and daunting undertaking, which requires a tremendous amount of education and practical application. Our seniors face many diverse responsibilities upon reaching age 65. To name just a few: Estate planning, taxation, Medicare, social security, wills, insurance, and various other legal and financial matters. All of these different areas require expertise from accountants, lawyers, estate planners, insurance agents, home brokers, financial advisors, and others.

The Internet is a good starting point for most people to find resources for questions and solutions for your problems. There is, however, no replacement for good solid intelligent advice from an expert.

Twenty years ago, insurance for elders was sold by "senior insurance specialists", with just a handful of companies in each state. The programs were most often Medi-gap or Medicare supplemental policies, which covered expenses not covered by Medicare, including hospital and doctor deductibles, durable medical devices, and non-approved Medicare costs. Ironically these specialists did not sell a lot of nursing care policies, even though Medicare paid a national average of less than 2% of these expenses. With advent of "financial and estate planning" and more insurance companies entering this market, a more broad and diversified product line became available to agents, brokers, planners, and seniors.

Part of this new diversification was "home health care plan", sold by itself, and in conjunction with senior health insurance products. The appeal of "home health care policy" was that a senior could stay at home and still receive medical and custodial benefits, allowing a person to recuperate in comfort of their own home.

This was answer to a huge problem. The last place an older person wanted to go was a "retirement home", or "rest home", or, God forbid, "nursing home." It appeared that seniors could now rely on this new innovation without worry of having to move out of their home environment in event of a health problem.

As with most things," if it is too good to be true".... The home health care policy is no exception. The problem is, there is not enough coverage for a lengthy illness or recuperation time. The fact is, new trend is toward an "all in one" type facility, allowing for a variety of levels of care all in one location. In other words a senior could start off with little or no health care concerns in an independent, less expensive area, and then go to an assisted living, or nursing care facility, all within same compound.

A "nursing home" requires a nurse on premises 24 hours per day, assisted living is just eight hours. The advantages to this are financial. The patient or senior is only charged according to care level required during time he or she is admitted to that facility. Another benefit is it alleviates a lot of planning because care is delivered, as it is needed. The medical attention is available to all residents regardless of their current health.