> but spending 100x on our current science infrastructure would probably mean less output unless we allow greater independence and stability I assume you mean

> but spending 100x on our current science infrastructure would probably mean less output unless we allow greater independence and stability I assume you mean $ for infrastructure as in physical buildings or something, not $ for research? Either way, I can imagine no world in which 100x $ will mean less output in Science. I'd entertain less output/$ arguments, but flat out adding money meaning less Science being done?!? If you do mean this then I supect you haven't written grants, nor (formally) reviewed them on a board, nor struggled for reagents, used surplus computers, or pined for a better microscope, or figured out what field work to cut etc. etc... if this is your take.