[RainFlutter]

The fundamental point underlying science and basic research is that it's generally not possible to know the value of knowledge before you, well, know it. Your perspective is extremely shortsighted.

If humanity only invested in projects of "measurable value," there would be no computer programmers, because there would be no computers, because we would not understand physics, because physics requires esoteric mathematics, and what good did fiddling with numbers ever do for anyone? No measurable value whatsoever!

[bluekeybox]

> The fundamental point underlying science and basic research is that it's generally not possible to know the value of knowledge before you, well, know it

Oh no, I wasn't arguing against science -- to the opposite, I wish that scientific achievement was better recognized by our society. I was making a claim that when science does achieve something, the value of those achievements is not "tracked." I fully understand that our whole technological economy depends on the achievements of science. The problem I was trying to solve is, basically, why is it then that scientists don't make a lot of money (a small fact, which, I believe, causes a "brain drain" to the financial industry, etc). I believe that if science correctly "tracked" its achievements (either by replacing the current journal citation rank by something more closely resembling a currency, or by implementing a better patent system, or both), more good science would have been made.

I think that the high-brow idealism you often find in science is a product -- not the origin -- of the current academic system. The reason there are many idealists in science is not because science requires idealism, but because the pragmatists end up somewhere else. As a result, the high-strung idealism devalues science in the eyes of the public.

[RainFlutter]

Oh, I see.

That would be interesting if it were possible. I'm not sure how you would manage it, though. Scientists already have an implicit incentive not to throw their careers away on unimportant research, and one of the major problems leading to the whole "publish or perish" trend is that it's really just impossibly hard for anyone who isn't directly involved in a narrow slice of research to evaluate that slice effectively, while anyone who IS involved in that narrow slice of research probably can't evaluate it objectively.

But some kind of prediction market or 'kickstarter' type model might do a better job than the grant model in figuring out how to dispense limited funds...? I'm not sure how you'd get it up and running with credibility and authority, but it's interesting to think about.