This is a debate that I've been reading about fairly continuously - what proportion of resources, in a time of economic struggle, should be devoted to scientific and technological advancement. On the one hand, there is the (rather poorly-thought-out) argument that there are other things which need to be taken care of now - shelter, nutrients, jobs, basic **** - before we can devote resources to technology which wouldn't be feasibly adopted until the far future. (Most humans have been noted to be horrible at thinking long-term.) The argument which I side with is the fact that scientific and technological development is an important way out of this situation and even if a certain amount of money is diverted away from what can really only be considered short-term but more immediate solutions to the problem, we have to keep moving forward because not to do so would only cause delays in which advances can reach the rest of the world. Thoughts?