It's sad that this is a good way to fund fundamental research. Why is it that finance make more than what seems to be more important and useful like math or science!?
Being sad about it is not so useful. You can actually help! Either becoming rich and helping basic science (of course) or voting well and influencing government decisions.
Simons is clearly very talented at what he does, his firm (how it is run, etc) seems quite amazing. And he's "doing" more science this way. It makes an awful lot of sense.
but he's not "doing" science anymore, and if i were in love with doing science, i really wouldn't want to go into finance, do lots of stuff i don't personally feel passionate about, get really rich, then pay other researchers to do science.
About Simmons specifically, he's actually published some research with a ton of applications in recent physics developments, which I think came out of his Chern-Simmons form. He had a good run in science before he switched. And he's been doing good mathematics lately it seems.
What I am talking about is mostly compassion with both fellow scientists and humanity -- thinking basic science is really important for society as a whole and enjoyable, and it should be a good career path because of that. If you consider only feeling passionate about, you could say "It's really sad people who are really passionate about Frisbee aren't paid to do so." (nothing against Frisbee of course, but you sure could do it only as a hobby! ).
Besides, Simmons has been doing what he likes and what he feels important, I think it's pretty cool. It sure doesn't hurt he's made an awful lot of money too.
This is an intellectually and morally bankrupt sentiment that is all the more worth calling out because it is both impractical and nonsensical.
1. This sentiment is nonsensical. Scientific funding often funds more than just salaries, and when it does fund salaries, those salaries are almost always modest. Furthermore, many of the salaries it funds are for non-scientists: technicians, software engineers, etc. The tired trope that scientific funding is primarily funnelled to wide-eyed loners who produce nothing but "useless" abstract ideas is demonstrably inaccurate. And to the extent that this caricature is accurate, Simons himself is a counter-point to the argument that this is a bad model.
2. This sentiment is impractical. Basic science is important to society as a whole and there's almost always no way to become ultra-rich doing basic science(++). All of society benefits when a good lot of our best and brightest go into science (rather than e.g. consulting or finance). And the best way to ensure that great minds go into science is to ensure science remains funded so that it is possible to work on truly important problems.
3. This sentiment is intellectually bankrupt. A great mind following its dreams without prioritizing financial reward is responsible for most of the major scientific developments that make it possible for you to bash their would-be descendents from behind a keyboard.
4. This sentiment is morally bankrupt. Punishing passionate people who give up highly lucrative careers to do something that is good for humanity is nothing short of vindictive -- I hate my work day so everyone else has to as well!
(edit: As an aside, you really think CEOs don't like the rush from having lots of power and making important decisions? They may work long hours, but I guarantee most of them fucking love their jobs. I also bet there's a pretty strong correlation between top-of-clas software engineers who command high salaries for their expertise, and software engineers who love their job.)
(edit2: Furthermore, science has lots of drudgery and hard, frustrating work to it; it's not all sitting in an office and drinking coffee. The idea that scientists unequivocally work on fun problems all day and never bash their heads against the wall to solve problems that they're more extrinsically than intrinsically motivated to work on is also pretty wrong.)
(++) Simons explicitly answers the question in his interview: No. Nothing we do at Renaissance -- no matter how impressive from a finance perspective -- is useful to science. It's just useful for making a handful of people rich.
