> and the main sponsors (governments and governmental institutions) try to be fair in the way they distribute their money. To do so, they have to make scientifi

> and the main sponsors (governments and governmental institutions) try to be fair in the way they distribute their money. To do so, they have to make scientific output measurable. Your first sentence is right, but the second is off-base. No one in gov't really gives a damn about measurable progress, which is why the measurements used are so broken. (See my other comment for a better measure.) The real issue: As with any gov't cheese it needs to be spread around, or it doesn't get the congressional support required for continuation. Ever wonder why: 1. The National Magnet Lab was removed from MIT and placed in that bastion of great science, Florida State University? 2. The Superconducting Super Collider ended up in that great cultural center of science, Waxahachie, Texas? Perhaps ease of access? 3. Plans for Mission Control, which were already drawn up to be north of MIT, was redrawn to be in Houston after Kennedy was killed? (look up the history of Tech Square in Cambridge.) Politicians think they can spend money in certain areas and results will materials. And they will get results, so it's self-reinforcing, but they're too scientifically obtuse to imagine that the results are not necessarily the ones they want.