A few billion here, a few billion there, pretty soon we're talking real money. >> The idea that there's a fixed-sized pie for science and every project takes a

A few billion here, a few billion there, pretty soon we're talking real money. >> The idea that there's a fixed-sized pie for science and every project takes away from something else is, frankly, defeatist. What fraction of the workforce should be diverted to "forward-looking" (ie, no idea if or when it will result in anything useful) research? Or how about what fraction of the much smaller part of the workforce who are capable of getting an advanced STEM degree? If we pay those people to switch to speculative research, what happens to whatever they're doing now that has enough proven value that private industry knows it's worth paying them to do?