LOL @ wasting taxpayer money. Strictly talking about ROI, public funded research is as "safe" an investment as there is. Every dollar spent on biomedical research returns that money back ten fold, or often more. Excepting NASA, you can extrapolate that out to most other research sectors that the public has funded.
DARPA has given us the internet, GPS, an innumerable list into the hundreds of billions of dollars of return on its <$3 BN total taxpayer cost.
The Human Genome Project cost $3.6 BN total, genetic technologies in biotech now worth upwards of $750 BN.
NSF operating budget is $7BN/year now. From it, we got Google. And NSF grants have been instrumental in the development of new technologies and companies in nearly every major industry, including advanced electronics, computing, digital communications, environmental resource management, lasers, advanced manufacturing, clean energy, nanotechnology, biotechnology, and higher education.
The Department of Energy operates on $5 BN/year. From it, we've gotten The optical digital recording technology behind all music, video, and data storage; fluorescent lights; communications and observation satellites; advanced batteries now used in electric cars; modern water-purification techniques that make drinking water safe for millions; supercomputers used by government, industry, and consumers every day; more resilient passenger jets; better cancer therapies.
Nearly every single dollar goes towards directly creating jobs or buying equipment, and administrative overhead costs go down by the decade instead of up.
We already get positive results for the money we spend.
But when you cut funding or make it results-driven, you make scientists only publish the safest, least innovative work. It entirely halts the scientific process.
