Well, that and the faux-/manufactured outrage from US Congress. Things like Coburn's waste book were designed to lampoon and degrade seemingly silly or wasteful basic-science research from just a cursory overview of the title or cherry-picked facts. That's part of a larger agenda alongside cutting basic research for cuts-sake, but it means that everyone in science is searching for a justification for even the most meager of funding. Human biomedical health is a good target—if you can come up with any plausible link, your odds of funding are better (maybe)—and I suppose robots aren't a bad one either.

The NSF has a list of responses to various such things: <https://www.nsf.gov/about/congress/wastebooks>

[dead]

These labs had one thing in common: they were funded by monopolies. Xerox with copy machines, Bell with the telephone, General Electric is also known for its monopolistic practices.

And you probably heard about these little things called LLMs, that's Google research, yup, another quasi-monopoly. And it wasn't product centric, in fact, Google turned out to be pretty bad at making a product out of their research, that's how OpenAI took over.

Monopolies are bad for consumers, but there is also some good. Because they make tons of money and don't have to worry about competitors, they can invest a lot into fundamental research with a long term perspective. A competitive industry rewards shorter term strategy, because companies can't afford to wait 20 years for the next big thing if their competitor takes over after 2 years with the next small thing.