Introduction is clear and easy to follow. Does a good job of introducing the concepts and an arguments that follow. The discussion of the early legislative history (that is, from the time when the bill contained a payback provision) seems a little redundant. If my understanding is correct, we are primarily focusing on why this provision was later removed from the bill. I think some of this material can be cut without losing anything?it will still be clear why the intial proponents of the bill thought the payback provision was a good idea. Discussion of the CA regulations is clear and sufficiently detailed. I find the argument that scientists are not money motivated somewhat unpersuasive. He first claims this is not his argument, but that?s what the subsequent paragraphs really seem to amount to. Even if it?s true that scientists and universities will not turn down government funding because of a possibility of lessened future revenue, this ignores the question of selection: whether the best scientists will choose to go to these institutions, and whether scientists and universities will choose to pursue these projects. Certainly it seems they could be making better money going to some other institution and/or pursuing different projects. Conclusion is provocative and well thought out. Overall, an excellent article.