[anigbrowl]

That's being pragmatic about science, not about the public. The wisdom of crowds has proved useful in all kinds of areas - collectively, human intuition is surprisingly good. A bit of crowd-pleasing might not be a bad thing; after all, nobody thinks of Christopher Columbus as 'the man who failed to discover a westerly trade route to India'.

[alphamerik]

Yes... I would expect a pragmatic scientist to be pragmatic about science, and a pragmatic politician to be pragmatic about public issues, ie politics.

I fail to see how Columbus holds any credence in the conversation, Columbus sought the favors of royalty for the purpose of creating wealth for royalty, the public interest was of no concern and never was to him. Nobody may think of Columbus as 'the man who failed to discover a westerly trade route to India', however some may think of him as foreshadowing the European colonization of the "New World"- thereby destroying and exploiting many indigenous people, or others may think of Columbus as the man who brought Syphilis back to Europe. Those would be pragmatic historical perspectives of Columbus...

[anigbrowl]

And between scientists and politicians sit administrators, whose job bridge the gap between the two, so that scientists get the funds they need and politicians can credibly tell the public that they're getting good value for their tax dollars. Some funding devoted to projects that resonate strongly with the public may be a more effective guarantor of reliable future funding than an entire collection of good-looking balance sheets for projects that don't capture the public imagination.

As for Columbus, at that the time royal interest and the public interest were effectively the same. My point is that Columbus got the funding he wanted by being a bit of a salesman, and even though he never achieved his stated goal he's generally thought of as the guy who found a whole new continent.

[alphamerik]

Scientists like Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking, and Neil deGrasse Tyson have done more for the public interest of science than any so called administrator, and oddly enough they tend not to impose their specific agendas in the process. If the "public" realized how much money goes into science vs how much money goes into the private military industrial complex they would be appalled. Or, perhaps the public is apathetic and "public interest" is merely a scape goat for the media. Someone, after all, must tell the public what they are interested in.