Robert McNees

Yes to this, times a million. And it's important for people to understand that this is supported by facts.https://twitter.com/AstroKatie/status/735725400198778881 …

In 2007 the Congressional Budget Office -- their job is to provide non-partisan economic analysis -- issued a report on Federal R&D funding.

You can read a copy of the report here: https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/110th-congress-2007-2008/reports/06-18-research.pdf …

But allow me to summarize some of their main conclusions. First, Federal funding of R&D is good, period. Major economic and social impact.

They conclude that Federal funding of Basic Research (curiosity-driven stuff) tends to have higher ROI than any other use of that money.

And it works best when the government does it, as opposed to industry.

First, the results of BR are profound but unpredictable. Will something useful emerge now or in 20 years? Industry wants predictable returns

Second, when a company can be convinced to spend its own $ on BR, it tends to avoid sharing results. Why subsidize R&D for your competition?

Third, when gov uses tax credits to incentivize industry research $, results are mixed. Focus is on maxing out tax breaks, not the research.

Anyway, the point is, of all the ways we (society) can fund basic research, federal (public) funding is hands-down the most effective.

And basic research -- much more than applied research or development -- is where you get the most bang for your buck.

Spillover from BR is the major economic driver. This is the stuff that you can't predict. The "Huh that's weird" stuff that no one expected.

Now, you might think "Fine, but at least we should fund BR that has a clear connection to something with distinct economic returns."

You'd be wrong! Historically, we get the most return from trusting the curiosity of scientists & the judgement of peer-reviewed Fed funding.

Academic BR is often lambasted for selecting projects that seem outlandish or wasteful. Why should taxpayers fund a mantis shrimp study?

Well, for starters, because the PI convinced several very critical scientists and one or more funding agencies that it's a good idea.

But if you're skeptical then maybe you want an economic justification. Fine, that's in the CBO report, too.

Studies of return-on-investment for BR often use Academic BR as a proxy for all Fed funded BR. And the conclusion is always: major return.

CBO cautions against taking specific numbers literally (Mansfield et al cite ROI > 28% for academic BR) but supports the general conclusion.

So don't take my word for it! I'm an academic scientist with an agenda.

Instead, trust the non-partisan organization whose job is to provide Congress with impartial economic analysis.

Curiosity-driven research, selected via scientific peer-review, free of political micromanaging, is one of the best uses of taxpayer $.