Efficient Market Theory tells us, that all the information available to the society on the perspective of further scientific investigations is already taken into account in the level the labour of scientists is paid.
Sounds scientific? For me, it certainly does.
However, a lot of scientists reject this scientific thesis and believe their labour is charged unfair. So, where is the line between the science and the religion then? Can we trust the science which is being rejected by the scientist making it? I ask them: "Would you invest as the money of about your annual income is into your own investigstions?", and they answer:" Certianly not, I'm not a fool, but that's what government must do".
Another state of economy science is that the salary level of some labour characterizes the amount of benefit the society gains from that labour. Hence, leaving one profession (say, science) to join another which is better paid (say, software development), is not just a self-interest, but the whole socienty benefits from that.
If I ask scientists why they have not done it yet, they say: "Oh, I believe I'm more helpful for society as the scientist than a programmer, even though my wage is less than it could be if I were programmer." Others answer honestly: "I don't like programming, it is boring so much that I don't need money I could earn being a programmer. But I love science.". Does it mean scientists are a sort of lazy selfish downshifters that choose the job which is just comfortable pastime?
How much do you think the society would benefit if all scientists leave the science and find a better-paid job for them, and the only people left in science would be those that are not capable of doing anything more useful?
Or do you think scientists reject economy sciencebut believe their labour is paid unfairly just because they don't trust the economy science? If so, than what makes them do that? Are they rejecting the science as the source of truth? Do they trust their own science then? And if not, why do they still play that game?