"Also, I think it is often politicians who decide which scientists get funding for their research, so in a way people do elect scientists (not sure how the syst

"Also, I think it is often politicians who decide which scientists get funding for their research, so in a way people do elect scientists (not sure how the system works in the US)." You are totally right. And, in my humble opinion, it's dangerous when politicians alone decide what should be investigated and studied. It creates a situation where "intellectual prostitution" is the norm. Scientists know what the funding agencies want to hear, and write grant proposals accordingly. A monoculture is born. No one works outside the mainstream ideas. Focusing on some areas is good because it creates momentum and leads to faster progress. For instance, in the 1950s and 1960s, the investment in the space program led to an amazingly fast progress. This was good. Entire new fields were developed. On the other hand, when the government alone decides that a certain area is "evil" (e.g., stem cell research) then we have a "New Inquisition" in place. This is very bad. In an ideal world, scientists would report their findings, politicians would propose courses of action, and people would vote for one proposal over the others. The real world is a whole lot less perfect.