Does this guy know how to make an argument? From his article's description, Feynman wasn't given a grant to look for weird things, just a university position.
After a techno-triumphalist phase in my teens, I've grown more skeptical of demands for more governmental science funding. It so often takes the form of those Teachers' Union bumper stickers pleading that all they need to fix our problems is higher salaries and better equipment, paid for at taxpayers' expense. The hype of the "LATEST SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY" when combined with NASA's blatant and very expensive public relations stunts only confirm my mild cynicism.
Feynman would not be allowed to do that in today's research university. Since the universities developed a taste for federal money, they have demanded that faculty not waste time on "unproductive" research—i.e., research that does not bring in research grants. Those who fail to bring in money can expect to find another job.
In other words, "Publish or perish" has been replaced by "Get funded or get out."
After a techno-triumphalist phase in my teens, I've grown more skeptical of demands for more governmental science funding. . . .
We should all be skeptical. More often than not, big government programs turn out to be wasteful, even counterproductive. Why should big government science programs be any different?