> Who provides the external check of whether the latest improvement is worth spending the money? Because astronomers will always say it's worth it on some dimen

> Who provides the external check of whether the latest improvement is worth spending the money? Because astronomers will always say it's worth it on some dimension. How do we decide whether that dimension is worth the money? I'm surprised you don't know that as someone from the field. On the general level, it is the elected politicians that decide of the budget of the state, and which part goes to science and to which science branch. On the specific level, it's the science organizations (usually staffed by scientists) that decide who get what based on the quality of scientific proposals. Scientists don't get money just because. They have to write lengthy proposals justifying their requests. These proposals are examined by other scientists and compared to others, and the most promising are awarded money. It can take decades to go from an idea to having a project funded. Also there is no "unit scientific discovery" so no $/unit scientific discovery can be evaluated