In “Let’s waste more money on science’’ (Ideas, Dec. 11), Thomas Levenson reminds us that the benefits of science funding may not appear for decades. While this is true, it does not necessarily follow that progress would benefit from increased funding. At present, many would agree that science needs more of the talented Max Plancks, Otto Nernsts, and Albert Einsteins that he mentions, rather than more money.

It has even been argued that, beyond a certain level, increased funding can be detrimental, because the most talented are promoted into management of the less able. There is also concern that overly generous science funding is disproportionately allotted to the most expensive megaprojects, making science actually less attractive to many of the most capable. Increasingly, they see entrepreneurship and hedge fund management as a better environment to make an important individual impact.

We scientists should focus more on how to attract the best and brightest, who once flocked to research careers. Given our nearly $20 trillion national debt, it is time to admit that, beyond an optimal point that we are reluctant to define, increased science funding alone might truly be a waste of money.

Peter Foukal

Nahant