Minister: Ok, so I'm a bit new to this stuff. Why do we fund science?
Usual suspect 1: Erm ... I always forget this bit.
Usual suspect 2: It's an investment. It makes more money for the economy than it costs, by a huge factor. Plus the kids love it.
Minister: Oh, right. Well, we need to make more money, don't we? Maybe we shouldn't cut it? In fact maybe we'll get out of this mess quicker if we spend a bit more money here?
All: Fall about laughing.
US1: Very droll minister. It is traditional to criticise scientists for not being entrepreneurs, then redirect research money into some innovation centres or something to subsidise industry. We could call them "campuses" or something.
US2: I believe we used that already?
US1: Ah. Well, then. We often point out that some of the science we fund is below the national average excellence.
Minister: Oh well, we clearly should only fund excellence. It is inexcusable surely that we are funding anything that is below average?
US2: Quite right minister. We should only fund the top half I would say. We should monitor it annually and if any of it is below the top half we should cut it.
US1: Also, some research comes up with negative results. We shouldn't fund that stuff.
Minister: Excellent, excellent. Well, that's a start. But I don't want to salami slice.
US2: Indeed minister. We prefer to use this axe ...
(To be repeated once every five years or so until the lights go out.)
