Investment in teaching science than other subjects? For any country, educational investment is an effective and necessary way to development and progress. It is apparently right that the government as an investor should pay more attention to expenditure of teaching science rather than other subjects. In my view, I do not agree with it in some sense. It is a fact that teaching science is a costly project in a country because of its huge effects. Not only benefited for every taxer in accessing to qualified education whether as young or adult, but also worthwhile for imposing to good academic achievements and advanced technology, teaching science plays indispensable role in modern civil world. Therefore governments have given its prior to other subjects, and it as return get more supplements than others. The bigger input does not mean that it is reasonable to ignore financial aid for other human disciplines, such as art and philosophy. Because plenty of evidence and arguments could be easily found to prove that it is advisable for a nation to subsidize these to culture more and more human scientists as symbols of a country and messengers to other nations. For example, Russell, a famous British philosopher, had visited to China twice and enhanced understanding between China and British with the official foundation. What’s more, to promote these human science have active effects for each citizen. In the demonstrate society, a person is not only responsible for the political identity, but as a defender of civilization, that is one have reason in philosophy and judgment in art. It’s not imaginable that inhabitants living in a developed country are not able to talk sufficiently about philosophical questions and artistic products. Accordingly, a government should better give the equal payment to teaching science and other human sciences.