The fundamental problem isn't that grant funding based on peer-reviewed evaluations of research proposals is a bad idea. It's that: 1. The pie has shrunk a lot

The fundamental problem isn't that grant funding based on peer-reviewed evaluations of research proposals is a bad idea. It's that: 1. The pie has shrunk a lot because federal funding of research has seen a huge decrease when measured as a fraction of GDP. 2. There's also a lot of political pressure to not "waste" public money on research that doesn't yield useful technology NOW. 3. But at the same time, there's an ever-growing supply of people who love doing science. These people are willing to do pretty much anything to get and maintain an academic research position, because like it or not, academia is still the among the best places to do high-impact research. So there simply isn't enough money to fund all the good ideas, BUT there's political pressure to fund only sureshot research, and an oversupply means that scientists are doing what it takes to be productive in their academic positions. The obvious solution is to increase federal funding for research. Accept that not everything is going to pan out as intended. It's not like every product a company makes is going to be profitable, so why should we expect science to work any differently? And then just wait! Some of this research will in fact succeed and we'll see the next internet happen.