To fund or not to fund - Are some science projects worth pursuing?

Here's something that bugs the crap out of me about funding science/arts. I'm going to use an art example, since I have one, but the same thing applies (and probably far worse) on the science side.I work and pay taxes. My money goes to the government which then allocates some of it to go to funding the arts. Fine.Some of that money goes to a particular artist (in this case Maplethorpe). Fine.That artist takes photos of men peeing in eachothers mouths. Not happy about it, but fine.Then that artist puts the photos together in a book which sells for $130 from which Maplethorpe pockets a good chunk. Very NOT FINE.If the government is funding the art project, then the project is for PUBLIC CONSUMPTION. When an artist (or scientist for that matter) is offered money so that they can pursue their dream free from having to hold down a job like the rest of us, then they have a descision to make:"Is the DOING the work more important that OWNING the work?" If so, take the money. If not, suck it up and do what the rest of us do. Work on your hobby on the weekend.I can't stand the idea that the Government will give scientist X $100,000 to run some experiments, from which he discovers a new medicine that he in turn sells for millions of dollars.

If lawyers and doctors were given grants from tax dollars that were taken from my paycheck, then I would expect that they would give me free legal and medical advice.The system as it stands now is tax money goes to pharmacuetical company to help them develope a drug that they then make billions off of.For the record, I've got the exact same problem with tax money going to buy baseball stadiums!