I had to read that twice before I understood it.<p>I've heard of basic science research (and funding) being likened to growing crops (albeit with different timeframes). You have to spend a lot of time and effort sowing seeds and about 20-30 years later you get to harvest the benefits.<p>Edit: I think other commenters might be missing the irony in the OP. The author mentions LCD monitors, prescription glasses, medicine, clean water, medical technology, the internet, satellites and computers. After all that, he ends with <i>"What have they [scientists] ever done for me?"</i>
All right, but apart from the sanitation, medicine, education, wine, public order, irrigation, roads, the fresh water system and public health, what have the Romans ever done for us?
This article makes an all too common economic fallacy.<p>It argues against a proposed <i>marginal</i> cut in spending on science. In order to portray this as a bad idea, he then argues that in <i>total</i>, spending on science is a good thing.<p>Similarly, I oppose 10% cuts in military spending because if the military were cut 100% 50 years ago, I'd probably have suffered under communism.<p>This is the logical fallacy of the "excluded middle".