It's obvious that in the absence of state funding there would be non-state funding. It won't be the same and it won't be zero. Why does the committee's judgement take precedent?

Also, some poorer people would pay to fund research in the absence of gov't funding. They actually already do, for disease research.

You can use utilitarian arguments to force people to do things that they otherwise would refuse. Isn't that a kissing cousin to indentured servitude?

Also, do you knot think I understand the riskiness of research? As if I haven't endured a few decades of poverty as a result?