Maybe I’m misreading, but there’s a clueless narrative going on in a few of the posts I’ve been reading lately here and elsewhere.

If I think something is a GOOD thing, why am I then obligated to support the government (particularly Federal) funding it? Why is it that I and many others are pegged as ANTI-SCIENCE because we think funding everything through the federal government is a dangerous, and slippery slope?

Someone above asked if another poster (who questions vast government funding of scientific projects) approved of NASA. Well, I approve of space exploration, experimentation and — heck — even colonization if it ever happened that way, but I do think that such things would be better accomplished if private funding of projects were more encouraged. There is evidence that space science is actually an attractive investment for some, but competing against the government (who can turn around a regulate you right out of the race) is darn near impossible. So it’s a hobby, if anything.

Meanwhile we’ve got a huge government entity that, while it has done many good things and given us many excellent discoveries, is inefficient and expensive. And who’s to say those discoveries wouldn’t have happened even faster in the hands of privately funded scientists?

What I’m getting at is the theme that fits very nicely into the Left’s agenda that anything called science that has a modicum of evidence it might have a successful outcome must be paid for by the government. And yes, it does become agenda science, it becomes more an effort to stay-in-business rather than end successful as well as unsuccessful research, and falls right into the target of politicization.

I hope I’m making sense, but it’s this kind of bizarre, knee-jerk theme that has me concerned about positive discourse for conservatives regarding many issues, but particularly science.

BTW — Just in case I’m not being clear, this post is only about merits of various funding, NOT the merits of science itself.