This questions sounds a bit controversial, but I will ask it anyway.
The USA, India, Canada, Israel, Sweden, Norway, Spain, Netherlands, Australia, France, Singapore, South Korea, Germany, Switzerland, Japan are spending billions of dollars every year on science.
Some companiesc say their created scientific research centers like Google DeepMind or Microsoft Research. Some billionaires such as Bill Gates or Michael Bloomberg are funding scientific research.
Is there any actual evidence that Science lacks money?
That more money would actually help scientists do more interesting stuff?
In PC video games, a gorgeous game called Crysis came out. Everyone was stunned. Since Crysis, video game studios have spent a tremendous amount of money to try to make games more beautiful, but it hasn’t really paid off.
Almost no one notices these small improvements anymore. In fact, many gamers actually question whether studios focus too much on graphics at the expense of gameplay and fun.
Don’t get me wrong. I love Science. I’m happy we are funding Science.
But I’m just wondering whether money is the real bottleneck neck that Science faces.
Right now, do scientists actually have money problems making it difficult to conduct ambitious research?
Would more money actually help them discover new things ?
A huge problem in science is the perverse effect of goal-funded research. Big Pharma wants science saying its pills work, Big Tech wants science that says its new toys are safe, and so science that says the pills don’t work or the toys aren’t safe rarely gets done and often gets buried when it is done.
The only counter to this is “pure” research funding. Maybe they’ll find something new, or maybe they’ll just discover that LLMs cause cancer or that weigjt-loss drug doesn’t work.
Science is neither a search for truth nor where useful inventions come from. It’s way more useful and important: a search for falsehoods and useful theories.