So how should we do it instead? One of my parents' friends had some interesting research on immunotherapy and AIDS back in the late '80s. But his lab didn't do AIDS. They did diabetes or some such. So his privately-held company didn't fund his AIDS-related research (which had come about as a consequence of whatever else he was working on) and he didn't want to move his family to Bethesda to continue it so that splinter of research withered on the vine. Would it have made a difference? We'll never know. Somebody has to pay for it. Private companies have to recoup their investment. Public labs need to provide a benefit for the public. And someone has to make that judgement. And if you've been making grant proposals for six years and haven't earned a single one, that's the system telling you to try something different before you run out of money. I'm sympathetic to "Michael". But if you can't justify why you should study it, study something justifiable until you can.