[adwf]

Seems to me like many research institutions, but well funded, attracting great talent and able to operate for a long timescale - they asked a lot of wrong questions too and we just highlight the great ones.

[grandempire]

I don’t think putting more money into the system makes the ideas better. We have way more money and people in science in the last decade than in 1960.

[inglor_cz]

It is more like "Don't burden talented people with 15 hours of mindless grant-related bureaucracy per week". Current models of science funding sap precious time away from the researchers in the name of red tape.

The brains are the most precious resource, not the money, and they should not be bothered with trivialities.

[timewizard]

The Bell system was rapidly growing and expanding across the world. This gave it capital to spend but it also gave it incredible access across our entire society to government, universities, and business.

[Tostino]

It allows more people to do it as a career if the funding goes partially towards salaries. That goes a long way towards making more progress in more fields.

[jjfjjjjjjjfjjf]

Certainly, as does any open-ended research organization. But when there are innumerable questions to consider and maybe 1% are worth-while, a 25% success rate might be incredibly impressive.