In economics, Adam Smith coined the term (rather unintentionally) 'the invisible hand' of economics that drives all the efficiency gains and progress entailed by using the market to mediate and satisfy human wants and needs. The rather recent advent of the market entity has led to enormous prosperity and growth due to mostly satisfying wants and needs via market forces. However, the market is not infallible and what might be profitable in the short term might not bring positive results in the long run, such as the burning of fossil fuels and climate change, ozone depletion by CFC's (now banned, fortunately), and neglecting the plethora of externalities that can't be foreseen immediately at the time.

However, if the market isn't infallible and can lead to undesirable outcomes, then don't we need an entity (most likely from within a government, run by scientists) to tell us what options that the 'invisible hand' provides to us as the most efficient and safe in the long run. Sure, Keynes said that in the long run we're all dead; but, this doesn't apply to governments. This is a problem that challenges the fundamental free-market ideology that dominates at this time. We can now see the result of this lack of regulation in our modern times with new challenges that we will have to face with climate change. Not to politicize the issue; but, who would have foreseen that investing so heavily in defense would have lead to the internet or the Manhattan Project leading to abundant peace, power, and prosperity. Yes, markets can provide solutions; but, it ultimately depends on the government to declare what options are of the most utility to all participants of the economy, and this entails the whole world and future as well.

Basically, what I'm asking is whether science can be guided to solve our human needs and problems. Such as cheap and abundant energy instead to let things sort themselves out via the 'invisible hand' with consequences having to be dealt with further down along the road?