Comment 23 by djs56 :

trying to show the kind of immediate causal connection (we funded X million dollars that created Y new industries) that are required for these kinds of cost benefit analyses are difficult to come up with.

Maybe, but i also think that you can't just say funding "big science" creates new industries, there should be more quantative statements. One of the most repeated posts on this entire website must be "show me the evidence," I think that is all that governments are saying.

Just because you think it may be "hard" or "difficult" to show isn't going to be a good enough reason not to do it, and, clearly, teams of scientists are (starting) to do it.

I think we're talking about two different criteria here. There's a criteria of profitable science and the criteria of good science. By 'good science' I mean that which has the greatest chance to increase our understanding of nature. My fear with this new wave of business model science is that we will become Rome; a tremendous number of interesting pieces of consumable bric a brac but no contribution to understanding.

When asking for evidence one needs to specify evidence for worthwhile scientific endeavors as well as the trivial consideration that some fool will pay you a few shekels for it.