

This definitely had nothing to do with the entry of the government into
the support of science; some of it is relevant in technology.  There
was little involvement of federal funds, or except through support of
state universities, of state funds, for scientific research before WWII.
The US research position had been growing steadily, and the funding was
mainly from university and private foundation funds.  There were not that
many research universities, but they all provided their researchers with
low teaching loads, laboratories, assistants, and equipment, and funds for
travel to scientific meetings.  Not that much, but it was provided, and a
university wishing to get a scholar had to consider research funding as well
as salary.

During WWII, the military and the defense departments found that pure
scientists could do quite well with their problems, even though they 
were not exactly in the areas of the scientists' expertise.  This is
probably because of the "research mind" approach, which is not to try
to find a solution, but to understand the problem and see if a solution
emerges.  This works in stages, and as research scientists were used to
discussion about their problems, the job got done.

The military realized the importance of maintaining scientists for the
future, and started funding pure research after WWII.  But Congress was
unwilling to have military funds diverted into this investment into the
future supply of scientists, and set up other organizations, such as 
NSF, to do the job.  It also set up an elaborate procedure to supposedly
keep politics out.  Also, the government did a job on private foundations,
making it more difficult for them to act to support research.

The worst part of the federal involvement is that in those areas in which
the government supports research the university will not provide funding,
and in fact expects its scholars to bring in net government money.  Suppose,
as has been the case, I have a project which could use the assistance of
a graduate student for a few months.  What do you think happens if I ask
for one?  The answer I will get is, "Get the money from NSF."  Now the
money at the university level is a few thousand, but at the NSF level it
comes to about 20 thousand, and is likely to keep a faculty member from
getting supported.  So the government is, in effect, deciding which projects
get supported, and how much.  

Also, the government decided that the "wealth" should be spread.  So instead
of having a moderate number of universities which were primarily research
institutions, the idea that more schools should get into the act came into
being.  And instead of evaluating scholars, they had to go to evaluating
reseach proposals.  As a researcher, I can tell you that any research proposal
has to be mainly wishful thinking, or as now happens, the investigator conceals
already done work to release it as the results of the research.  What I am
proposing today I may solve before the funding is granted, I may find 
impossible, or I may find that it is too difficult.  In addition, tomorrow
I may get unexpected research results.  Possibly I may bet a bright idea
which solves yesterday's too difficult problem, or a whole new approach to
something I had not considered can develop.  This is the nature of the beast, 
and except for really vague statements, if something can be predicted, it
is not major research, but development or routine activity not requiring 
more than minimal attention of a good researcher.  

I believe that at this time less quality research is being done than would
have happened if the government had never gotten into it, and the government
is trying to divert researchers from thinkers to plodders.