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

I think it is clear that science is not very "efficient" in any way a business would defene it.A large amount of work is done with no expected benefits other than knowing something unknown before. That could all be removed in the interests of efficiency.Another big hunk might be trying for something "useful" but many efforts there fail. This is the nature of trying new things.Another chunk is inherently expensive like the super super collider. (this might also be in the first category too) or most astronomical research today.So if you don't like learning things you shouldn't be too keen on supporting science in general.However, the tiny fraction of things that are useful has remade the world. Perhaps that is the way to measure it. Not one project at a time but the net outcome from the entire endeavour.Of course, I'd allow for an examination of the sense of spending money in one place rather than another. That is part of the argument over maned or unmaned space exploration.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-12-2006 07:29 PMThis message has been edited by NosyNed, 02-12-2006 07:31 PM

I'll nominate this next.The difficulty is, ohnhai, we do have to draw some line. We must always make decisions with a recognition of limited resources. However, if one looks at where money is spent in the developed world it is clear there is plenty of money available that, if utterly wasted on dud science, would be beneficial just to have it NOT spent where it is now.

I think we are overly focussed on the very esoteric areas of QM and cosmology. If the above is a requirement for funding then there will not be much of anything funded.I'd suggest that the average man-on-the-street can not understand much of what goes on in almost any field.The wonders that are uncovered as we do more genome readings, the chemistry involved in understanding how they affect disease processes in our bodies, the complexity of ecological webs, the physics involved in the global warming debate, the real nature of a clone -- all these seem to be beyond a real appreciation by a very large number of the taxpayers funding it.The research going on to produce better batteries, the trade offs in using them, the physics of new types of TV sets. The list that the average Joe can never understand includes all the leading edges of science and technology today.I am not one who thinks that all that many people can, even with a lot of effort, ever understand much of this. Just like the Olympic athlete example we are all limited in different ways.