[wang_li]

When you speak in abstracts and generic terms about the value of government funding research, you are saying nothing meaningful in terms of knowing whether the government should spend more or less on research. If the OP's specific research was into The Changing Mating Habits of the Delta Smelt Due to Habitat Destruction, then probably it was money that could far better spent paying tuition for, say, medical students or even just letting tax payers keep their money and spend it in a way that directly benefits their family, their community, and themselves. Otherwise you are just handwaving and demanding everyone assume that all research is good and should be publicly funded.

In terms of cutting NSF budget, they have issued grants for things that explicitly violate Title IX of the Civil Rights act.[1] You can't justify all NSF spending by cherry picking successful past spending. We can evaluate the benefits of proposed research and whether it aligns with the intentions and values of society at large. We don't have to spend because someone incanted the words "Because SCIENCE!" over a bubbling beaker.

1. https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=2424507&His...

[cmontella]

> If the OP's specific research was into The Changing Mating Habits of the Delta Smelt Due to Habit Destruction, then probably it was money that could far better spent paying tuition for, say, medical students or even just letting tax payers keep their money and spend it in a way that directly benefits their family, their community, and themselves.

The problem is it's very hard to know ahead of time which research directions will yield fruit. If we knew how to only fund good research, then science funding would be very easy. Unfortunately, that's not the case -- oftentimes things that are sure bets fail, and things that are rejected as "not promising" result in a breakthrough. So we have to fund a lot of stuff, some of which is not obviously going to yield a great ROI.

On the one hand, yes, funding science the way we do results in a lot of "wasted" funding. There are tons of inefficiencies. On the other hand, the way we fund science has been wildly successful in terms of the benefits we have reaped. Look around you, you can see them everywhere in every sector.

The danger is we pull back funding to things that are "sure bets" and they turn out to be duds while we miss out on other less sure opportunities. That would be a loss for everyone involved.

[anigbrowl]

Delta Smelt

I did not stop reading right there, but I may as well have. Invoking this particular area of research has become a popular conservative trope, because casual news readers do not get the point of studying a tiny fish in general or its love life in particular, even though it's a useful indicator species for the overall health of the riparian ecosystem.

You seem you like an intelligent person. Why are you leaning on tropes that exploit and glorify ignorance and anti-intellectualism?