purpose of funding or not funding science

In another thread, the relative merit for funding different kinds of scientific research was being discussed as if funding is little more than a system for validating some research and de-validating others. In the current economic situation in which unprecedented budget-cutting is going on, one may wonder what the overall economic purpose(s) are of funding science and other human activities that aren't directly resultant in the production of basic necessities. That is to say, if recession were to continue indefinitely, funding for ALL non-essential activities would be continually reduced. Presumably, within the logic of capitalism's invisible hand, such reductions have the function of inducing greater conservation of consumption (rationing) as well as stimulus to produce something whose value is high because of its scarcity (thus reducing the need to ration).

So the question is what could scientists whose funding gets eliminated do to produce more economic value? Is there some demand that they could be supplying? If not, I'm not sure I understand the purpose of eliminating their funding altogether? Reducing it may have the effect of stimulating greater conservation through stricter rationing of consumption, but totally eliminating funding just drives them to seek new means of income that may not be available when recession is the result of economic abundance or other reasons for diminishing demand in the broader economy.

Edited May 4, 201114 yr by lemur