As a former professional scientist (I will always be a scientist, just not one who earns a living from science), the problem is not money directly, but the encouragement of students into becoming professional scientists when there is no money to support them when they finish their training.

A little over a week ago, HN pondered a question based on essentially the opposite premise: "Why do so many people continue to pursue doctorates?" [0]

The submission garnered some unbelievably sour comments about graduate research (the top comment, in particular).

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11543439

Basically we have no problem paying a lawyer who profits from adversarial divorces $400K per year; but people blanche at scientists with PHDs getting more than $100K-$150K per year.

So we've ended up with more lawyers and less scientists.

Money would help but so would dismantling the feudal system that controls it. Remember the guy who cured ulcers? His story is an insight into how dysfunctional science is.

What does the average postdoc make in STEM? Something like 40k. Wanting a family and having to be a slave to the job for pennies on the dollar was a big disensentive for me. Also, I would never move away from Canada and I feel le there were even fewer opportunities here.

The problem is most scientists now days aren't real scientists. They are closer to laboratory workers or even bureaucrats. What we need to do is reform science as a whole, the very methodology's that we accept for science. Science does not = scientific method, that's a small subset, but we've become deluded into thinking that's all science is. Until we see science as more, scientists will be limited

I wanted to be a scientist and study physics. I found that working with computers paid better than being a scientist unless one beco es popular.

Seeing a kindergarten friend of mine being among the top 10 in ecology and living like a hobbo like his friends and doing spectacular research and not giving up, I don't think it is money.

I think it is the pressure of company fueled academism in bending the research to censor research that is the real problem.

Corpo and governement are censoring and fighting research by underfunding and noising the environment with shitty science made to make a point.

Don't tell me Science could not detect the diesel gate sooner, yes they could, but government preferred to fund diesel optimistic research.

Don't tell me the thyroid problem happening in every nuclear polluted region could not be detected sooner (Eastern Europa, Japan...) they were. But, it has been silenced by focusing on the cancers.

Don't tell me Fourier books on the contribution of human activity to the global warming of earth (1824) was not written, and thus that this knowledge is "new".

Science, like justice, should be independent from government and economical powers.

Universities should be autonomous.

We have a lot of scientists. Just the US government spends 140+ billion per year and 1.4 trillion per decade on R&D. The problem is we simply try and push more people into those fields than we are willing to pay for. Research is important in the short and long term, but I think the U.S. would be better off focusing more on infrastructure and less on research.

A few pipes to move fresh water from dry to wet areas of the country would not cost all that much. A few more subways in major city's could do a lot. 10% or 14 billion could go to projects that more than pay for themselves in a few years.

PS: Yes, a big chunk of that is military R&D, they can also get cut.

I get the feeling that any scientific jobs that actually pay in accordance with their merit are those that have been entirely consumed by current industrial pursuits.

Uh, why does "This means that my work will never result in a marketable product, a useful machine, a prescribable pill, a formidable weapon, or any direct gain." imply "she’s the real deal" in any way? If your definition of science includes "completely useless for all practical purposes", of course there's not going to be very much money.

What if there was no tenure and the pie would be re-divided based on performance every year? If that would disproportionately help the more productive scientists, wouldn't that help attract more funding for science and make the pie bigger for everyone? Why can't science work like the rest of the world?

It's old hat to complain about lack of money in science. Instead, ask, how can I fund my knowledge producing project? "Public funds" is not always the answer.

Lately I have binged on the television show "Fringe"(2008–2013). Good example of science gone off the deep end.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1119644/

I can't help but see publicly-funded science as deprecated in favor of market-driven science. There's simply too many fields for government largesse to really be able to fund in force. I wish it didn't have to be so subject to the whims of popular opinion, but really, I can't think of a better way.