[tostitos1979]

Well .. it is a tournament model so price is misleading. Top researchers at industrial labs get paid a decent amount. The problem is (a) getting a coveted job, and (b) mobility when things eventually go south at your employer and they decide research is expendable.

[projectramo]

I think both these points are true:

1. Society uses price signals to drive activity to areas "we" want to develop

2. In research, the tournament model prevails so a few winners get most of the gains

However, the question arises:

The tournament model prevails in many other domains including startups, the movie industry and so forth. However, in those areas most people don't feel that the enterprise is severely underfunded. (I am assuming this so if people have contrary data, I will re-assess).

The question stands: in spite of the tournament model, why does society fail to deliver enough reward for basic research when we as a society believe that there should be more of it.

(We could ask the same of teachers, and so on.)

It could also be the case that "society", whatever that is, doesn't really feel that science is underfunded.