[reillys]

Knowledge in itself is good. We don’t need everything to have a direct commercial application. In fact most discoveries by their nature do not have directly applicable commercial applications.

[thecoppinger]

Here's an excellent lecture that drives this point home:

"Physics in the Interest of Society Lecture 2019: John Parmentola"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sx-55BhuFks

[nick__m]

I agree and I am sure physicguy also agree but, alas, those who manage the grants system frequently don't.

[lukan]

Because those who pay for the taxes frequently don't. So some justification needs to happen to spend other peoples money. A better way would be nice, though.

[mnky9800n]

This is a popular argument but there are plenty of things that cost orders of magnitude more taxes that go towards projects that lots of people don’t agree with. Americas trillion dollar war machine for example.

[babycheetahbite]

Well put. But, of course many on here don't have time for the concerns of simpleton non-elites, and whether they should have a say about where their money goes; I've noticed lately I look for the greyed out comments first on HN.

[westmeal]

Divert a percentage of military spending to a pool of money for scientists to use.

[superturkey650]

Isn’t that what government grants essentially already are?

[gmueckl]

In the US, maybe. But other countries don't need to launder research money through their defense budgets.

[Loughla]

How is it laundering if the research has an explicit use for the military? I'm confused on your point.

[dinkumthinkum]

Many such countries have their defense subsidized by the US.

[lukan]

What do the taxpayers say?

(Me I say yes! But I learned, I usually do not represent a majority)

[mnky9800n]

You are correct. Please try to convince grant agencies that blue sky research doesn’t need direct application.