What about <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;experiment.com&#x2F;curebatten" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;experiment.com&#x2F;curebatten</a>?<p>Still, big science does not equal good science. In most cases, the opposite is true. I find it&#x27;s such a huge stereotype, even within research, that scientists forget about the creative, entrepreneurial, or hustling spirit of doing science that they default to pointing to have&#x27;s and have-not&#x27;s. &quot;He has a big grant, so I how can I compete&quot;, and that zero-sum attitude is so counter productive.<p>&gt; an inherently good thing<p>Yes, I vehemently believe it&#x27;s a good thing. If we ever approach the levels of science literacy needed to create the adverse effects you&#x27;re hinting at, then that would be fantastic. And, not knowing what&#x27;s worth funding isn&#x27;t a citizen&#x27;s fault, that&#x27;s on the scientist. If scientists were more vocal about their work, new opportunities, and big challenges, then of course the public would be able to identify what&#x27;s worth funding. This is because communicating science is inherently a good thing, and when done well, it can motivate people to learn new things or act differently. Look at what pointing a bomb at the direction of the moon did in the 60s.<p>With respect to the problem in the article, these regulators and policy-makers need a big rocket to point at a single direction. When people are disconnected with what&#x27;s out there, then there&#x27;s no context for when science gets taken for a ride  with a different agenda.