[digitalronin]

> Scientists used to be aristocrats interested in truth. These days they're just > interested in grants.

I'm not sure if that's actually what you're advocating, but personally I'm very much against science only being the domain of rich people who can afford to do it as a hobby.

[notrichmyself]

I don't strictly disagree with that, but I do think a significant amount of science (not all) should be led by rich people. Rich people aren't random, there is a natural selection in whom becomes rich. Imperfect as that selection process is, I think it is at least better than the alternatives of popular vote or bureaucrat decision. I say this not being rich myself.

I also believe a significant amount of science should be democratically driven.

[marcinzm]

>Rich people aren't random, there is a natural selection in whom becomes rich.

Generally it's the kids of rich parents.

[trhway]

that reminds about the history of amateur and professional sports, including Olympics, at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century - aristocrats wanted to preserve and cultivate the "pure" sports spirit and thus were pushing for amateur sports and against payments to the sportsmen, while regular people to be able to seriously play sports needed to make a living out of it.