That still doesn't mean that the nation or world is better off, even economically, with the current number of scientists. The problem with using simplistic eco

That still doesn't mean that the nation or world is better off, even economically, with the current number of scientists. The problem with using simplistic economic models when talking about scientific research is that it's extremely hard to quantify its value. Basic research has made tremendous advances in our health, standard of living and general wealth. It's also very difficult to determine how much each person's contribution was worth. I've read that surveys of late 19th industrialists and leaders who voted steam engine improvements as the most critical field for technological advancement for the next 100 years. It's an amusing idea in retrospect, but who would have paid for research that would lead to flight or electric rail? CDs, lasers, integrated circuits, etc... are great! But what kind of "demand" was there for research into quantum mechanics 80 years ago? Even if the demand were quantified, how much would each scientists contribution be rewarded? Surely, Feynman and other scientists building upon Einstein and Heisenberg's ideas created something of great wealth for us! But for the most part, those scientists won neither fame nor riches. As long as the focus is on simple short-term supply and demand, this is how it works. The scientist makes a clean pass, but it's the businessman or the engineer who takes the ball the last few paces, scores and gets all the glory. I for one believe that China is doing it right in this regard. The government is taking the lead in subsidising and investing in technological infrastructure as well as basic research to create more opportunities for private entrepreneurs in the long run.