Researcher with practical results can provide evidence of usefulness of his results to society and discuss his work and result with his money-guarding superiors who are not researchers themselves. Superiors take some time to confer and decide whether and how much he gets.<p>Basic research cannot be so easily evaluated, often it is decades, sometimes centuries before the practical use is found, if ever. Basic research, by its definition, has unclear significance for anything except researcher&#x27;s curiosity and intellectual fulfillment. The results in the form of a paper are often too remote from the needs of society and often so intellectually involved nobody except few people competent in the field can judge whether the work is even meaningful, far from judging its usefulness.<p>The current evaluation process for basic research is that grant committees don&#x27;t even try to evaluate the usefulness of the research requestors have done. They use superficial indicators like existing publication score, academic rank and history of the requestors, relation of the work to other high-profile trending topics, association with popular research groups and political considerations.<p>That&#x27;s why I think people who want to do basic research should not be funded by their colleagues in field directly from tax money. It&#x27;s too opaque and ridden with corruption.