I tried both. I wrote two R01s that were funded in the early 00's. I was 2 for 2. Unfortunately, they weren't mine, and I didn't have a PhD yet. Also I got a AHA fellowship at that time, so 3 for 3. I submitted about 30 grants after 2005, everything from basic science to translational. About 70% of these were Not Discussed. None of them were funded. It's not the justifiably of the science, it's $/scientists.But if you can't justify why you should study it, study something justifiable until you can.
Turn it on it's head, though - suppose $/scientist asymptotically divided by zero. Suppose Stephen Chu were elected president on a platform of Pure Science. I'n'I am gonna write a grant proposal to discover whether Miller Lite tastes great or is less filling. And I'n'I am going to be truly butt-hurt about one of two things: (1) government waste if I get it (2) government stinginess if I don't. At some point, science isn't going to get funded. I will freely and cheerfully agree that the ideal point is far, far richer than it is now (for all branches that don't indirectly relate to killing people) but I don't see how the problems in the essay are avoidable. More common than they should be, yes. For sure. But at the end of the day you can't (and shouldn't) fund everything.