How do we know what projects are worth funding? Anything that labels itself science? Is sociology science and basic research? Do we fund people instead of projects? How do you get in the group?
These grants are competitively reviewed by experts in their fields, and are quite hard to get. Even twenty years ago getting an NIH R01 was considered an important career accomplishment.
Now, as to the topics being funded, the broad strokes are set by Congress, which is why much of the funding goes to medical research since pretty much everyone likes the idea of better treatments for things like cancer or Alzheimer’s disease. If there was an entire field they considered unnecessary, the legal process would be working with Congress to either remove it entirely or put in restrictions. They aren’t doing that, of course, because that would force people to actually go on the record voting for something specific and that usually exposes that “junk science” claims are deceptive.
I can’t read between the lines you’re drawing. Are you trying to say that unless we can make perfectly efficient funding decisions, we should fund nothing?
If a research topic is obviously valuable, the industry is probably already working on it. Academic research mostly deals with topics where the benefits are too unpredictable or too far in the future to make sense for the industry. But many of those topics eventually become valuable – you just don't know in advance which ones.
I think you wait a few decades and you have thousands of people using their full brain power and attention to continue to secure that funding. And not just money - but a continuing affirmation that their work is valuable.
> you just don't know in advance which ones.
at the limit, this sounds like “you can’t question what’s good science because it’s unknowable, but it’s also a moral imperative to fund” which leads back to my original question. If that’s true, which projects and fields get to forgoe scrutiny in hopes of paying off?
It's fundamentally no different from what VCs are doing, except the timescales are longer. You expect that most startups are going to fail but some are going to be really successful. Because you can't predict the outcomes in advance, you fund a large number of startups, hoping to catch the successful ones. There are some heuristics that should help you pick the winners. Or at least you hope so. But you also know there is a real chance that your intuition is wrong and the heuristics just make your choices worse.
In your view, the government should’ve not funded the research that resulted in, say, the internet, because who could’ve known it would be valuable before it was done? Is that right?
Then there’s this weirdly pervasive (on the political right) attack on researchers that supposes they’re all just out for funding, damn the actual science. Is that a reflection of your values, projected on people you don’t know? Is it in actual, widespread evidence? Are you just begging the question for fun?
These are basically nonsensical objections that, I’m guessing, have no basis in reality as no evidence is given. There are a whole lot of listed studies available - it seems like it would be easy to find examples of things that shouldn’t be funded.
> In your view, the government should’ve not funded the research that resulted in, say, the internet
No. I’m saying just because things had unforeseen value in the past does not mean we should not scrutinize which projects we fund.
In other words, having bad prospects for utility or success is not a virtue.
The limit of that argument is that anything and everything deserves funding because it might be useful even if its prospects look terrible.
> These are basically nonsensical objections
What’s nonsensical is to say funding science means good things happen, not funding science means bad things happen. What’s science? I don’t know. Everything from particle physics, to elementary school surveys.
“Concern” may be the best single term for the downfall of civilization. It’s not that anyone’s doing anything wrong, it’s that there is concern that there could be someone doing something wrong, so best to hit the self destruct button.
We all do. But that’s not concern. Tell me something specific and I’ll agree or disagree. Tell me you are concerned in some abstract sense and I’ll accuse you of trying to get the outcome you want without presenting any reasonable argument.
Now, as to the topics being funded, the broad strokes are set by Congress, which is why much of the funding goes to medical research since pretty much everyone likes the idea of better treatments for things like cancer or Alzheimer’s disease. If there was an entire field they considered unnecessary, the legal process would be working with Congress to either remove it entirely or put in restrictions. They aren’t doing that, of course, because that would force people to actually go on the record voting for something specific and that usually exposes that “junk science” claims are deceptive.