The goal of research (at least for basic science) isn't to make money, it is to increase knowledge about the universe. This knowledge is a public good, so it makes sense that private industries motivated by profit do not support fundamental research. Scientific progress is a rising tide that lifts all boats.
At some point most of the sources of funding for most research, there's some expectation of ROI at some point. This isn't true obviously for very basic research, but even then there's a hope that the process of exploring the deep unknown produces some practical output. For example, the process of building and designing the LHC produced various advances in fields as far ranging as management theory to precision machining and CAD design.
For the organizations and countries involved, this helps provide for an advanced industrial base that continues to build and drive an ecosystem that supports powerful economic engines.
If you just want ROI, you are better off spending your money elsewhere. This is evidenced by the lack of money most companies put into scientific research. Further the gains of science are in general hard to profit off of. (http://www.therichest.com/business/they-could-have-been-bill...)
Another major reason governments fund research is to produce people with PhDs. This is why the apprenticeship structure of academia is so sticky, and why in order to get tenure professors have to graduate students.
Well .. it is a tournament model so price is misleading. Top researchers at industrial labs get paid a decent amount. The problem is (a) getting a coveted job, and (b) mobility when things eventually go south at your employer and they decide research is expendable.
1. Society uses price signals to drive activity to areas "we" want to develop
2. In research, the tournament model prevails so a few winners get most of the gains
However, the question arises:
The tournament model prevails in many other domains including startups, the movie industry and so forth. However, in those areas most people don't feel that the enterprise is severely underfunded. (I am assuming this so if people have contrary data, I will re-assess).
The question stands: in spite of the tournament model, why does society fail to deliver enough reward for basic research when we as a society believe that there should be more of it.
(We could ask the same of teachers, and so on.)
It could also be the case that "society", whatever that is, doesn't really feel that science is underfunded.
You also don't know how you stack up in the tournament. The people entering graduate school have usually done really well in undergrad. However, being in the top 1% (or whatever) of that small pool provides you with a lot less information than you'd think about your prospects in a pool of people who were also in the top 1% of their own undergrad classes.
Repeat for grad school->postdoc, postdoc->tenure track, and so on.
I agree completely. I also think there is way more luck involved than people want to admit - a lot interesting results are unexpected, and there are so few jobs the timing has to work out for you. I have known plenty of great post docs who couldn't get a Professor job, and plenty of Professors who seem pretty mediocre.
