The sole purpose of Science is to study God's Works and remove ALL influence of mankind.
ALL Religions study the works of man, and many if not most denounce the works of God.
Example: First page of Bible, Genesis, all the heavens and Earth were created in 6 days. Many thousands have studied God's Works and determined this to be false. Yet religions choose to trust the writings of man over the works of God.
Are Religions actually the works of demons?
But this is a perspective of Science as a Philosophy, versus Religion as a fixed work of men (not women).
My beliefs are considerably different and related to extensions of causality in terms of physics.
But you are correct, grants in-general are provided to accomplish specific objectives. Since these objectives may skew broad discovery, then useful interfacing with physics may not occur in some regimes. However, the trend seems to be building on previously useful information.
I would like to see NIST.gov create and maintain a physics interrelationships database that allows for graphic demonstration of interrelated relationships. The concept being that abstractions of relationships can be modeled and viewed as subsystems of larger systems that describe physics.
The intent is to be able to make small changes in modeled systems, and see how the change affects other systems of models; i.e. looking for useful applications.
Even fringe models of physics included with correlations automatically generated based upon common variables responding across different system models.
I'm not sure if a supercomputer would be enough, or if parallel processing of quantum computers would need to supplement processing (manipulating systems of variables).
Grant Agencies want a return on their investments. So it is natural for them to want to start a grant from previous successes.
What you seem to be proposing is a system of Risk Management and related mitigation proposals that allows for divergent perspectives to receive equal funding considerations.
