Research is a money pit

Do you ever get the sense that research money often goes wasted? Even if you ignore all the research dead-ends and the discoveries which have limited implications, and just concentrate on what you can get for your tax money. How often does an expensive machine get used for only one experiment, how often do we throw out stuff that still works. And not to mention the price gouging that suppliers are guilty of. I don't understand how a ice pack for a western apparatus can be 10 times more expensive than a regular one, or why a research fridge is four times the price of a regular fridge. It's certainly not for the reliability, from what I've seen of our fridges. Some of the kits you can get now are ridiculous, especially considering the hourly wage of the person using it. It begs the question: should we hold the researchers accountable for the money they use? Between two researchers who produce the same work, should we choose the one who will do it for cheaper, or do we risk stifling innovation? Just take this example of a researcher who used his grant money for chrome wheels and big screen TVs. It sounds like he got off easy:

"Another $123,703.20 in expenditures appeared to be "inconsistent" with his research grant proposals, the documents say. But university investigators gave him the benefit of the doubt saying the nine computer monitors and other items "might have been related" to his research from a "general scientific perspective."

The university then made an arrangement with the researcher that in the "event of timely repayment" of $24,767.33, it would not ask for the rest of the money back.

The university returned $21,485.67 to NSERC. The documents indicate the other $3,000 refunded by the scientist was sent back to other agencies that had also financed his research."

Grant proposal

I've been working all weekend on a grant on Williams syndrome for a class. Over the course of that weekend I read over the internets twice, and I found this great scientific proposal which we should replicate in the bay: Breeding M&M candies.

"Whenever I get a package of plain M&Ms, I make it my duty to continue the strength and robustness of the candy as a species. To this end, I hold M&M duels. Taking two candies between my thumb and forefinger, I apply pressure, squeezing them together until one of them cracks and splinters. That is the"loser," and I eat the inferior one immediately. The winner gets to go another round.
I have found that, in general, the brown and red M&Ms are tougher, and the newer blue ones are genetically inferior...
Occasionally I will get a mutation, a candy that is misshapen...

When I reach the end of the pack, I am left with one M&M, the strongest of the herd. Since it would make no sense to eat this one as well, I pack it neatly in an envelope and send it to:

M&M Mars, A Division of Mars, Inc.
Hackettstown, NJ
17840-1503 U.S.A.

along with a 3x5 card reading, "Please use this M&M for breeding purposes."

This week they wrote back to thank me, and sent me a coupon for a free 1/2 pound bag of plain M&Ms.
I consider this "grant money." I have set aside the weekend for a grand tournament. From a field of hundreds, we will discover the True Champion. There can be only one."