In my opinion, physics should. But practically, researchers (including physicists) most often ignore economic problems of science. For them, knowledge has priority, and the price of this knowledge is insignificant and is not considered, with rare exceptions. Of course, modern science is a heavy burden on the economies of countries that develop it. Examples are nuclear power (including weapons), space research, high energy physics, etc. These studies often "pay off", but there is no guarantee that this will always be the case. For example, for the Large Handron Collider, with its astounding recurring costs, the future economic effect is very problematic. There is a second side to the problem: since physics often pretends to be "the queen of all sciences" (I saw physics, which taught philologists approaches to the literature ...), physical methods are widely used in other sciences. This is not only and not so much instrumental methods, but also a model approach. In reality, physicists always simplify the phenomenon, reducing its complexity to a more or less observable and, most importantly, “considered” model. Sometimes these models are noticeable in the economy. Let the experts in economics argue about the productivity of such modeling.

Many physicists work in the realm of industrial, medical, radiation dosimetry, geophysics, and many other applications. For them, to be familiar with economic priorities is useful. It is probably to a lesser extent needed in the case of academic fundamental research studies in physics.

Researchers in the field should encourage a holistic approach to problem solving that takes into account a realistic range of socioeconomic conditions and as well as ensuring safety of mankind.

In my opinion, physics should. But practically, researchers (including physicists) most often ignore economic problems of science. For them, knowledge has priority, and the price of this knowledge is insignificant and is not considered, with rare exceptions. Of course, modern science is a heavy burden on the economies of countries that develop it. Examples are nuclear power (including weapons), space research, high energy physics, etc. These studies often "pay off", but there is no guarantee that this will always be the case. For example, for the Large Handron Collider, with its astounding recurring costs, the future economic effect is very problematic. There is a second side to the problem: since physics often pretends to be "the queen of all sciences" (I saw physics, which taught philologists approaches to the literature ...), physical methods are widely used in other sciences. This is not only and not so much instrumental methods, but also a model approach. In reality, physicists always simplify the phenomenon, reducing its complexity to a more or less observable and, most importantly, “considered” model. Sometimes these models are noticeable in the economy. Let the experts in economics argue about the productivity of such modeling.

Unfortunately scientists contribute alot to the economy but they are paid little. Politicans earns 5 times more than scientists.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Quants

The 'quants' already did it.

Dear CEO Stephen I. Ternyik,

Physics is a queen of XX century. In XXI it is replaced by Software. The 'Quants' that you referred to is about Software - high speed trading; investment strategies; artificial intelligence - it's basically Software. Those applications take economic priorities as a matter of course, that is 'a priori'.

Yes, Pure sciences & social sciences need to collaborate for common good to emerge.

First of all, it is necessary to determine the terminology of what is "economy". One famous economist prof. Valentin Katasonov once said "Economics is not science, economics is creativity like music, painting, sculpture and so on" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BPP_qLCe_W8 Valentin Katasonov - Economics is not a science, but creativity. From this point of view, physics should develop independently, because economic expediency will be determined by politics and conjuncture at a given time. For example, models from mathematical physics are used to predict historical events. Writer Elena Prudnikova (physicist by training) https://www.litres.ru/elena-prudnikova/ created such models to receive the findings on historical facts.

Engineering always takes

Len Leonid Mizrah

Yes, the 'a posteriori' of exponential knowledge automation depends on the creative role of engineering design, i.e. informatics as cognitive science.

yes

Dear really very talented scientists, Please see my new work about it: Book Economy and Physics-Math-Technical Issues of Informatics Era...

Revaz Lordkipanidze

Good presentation; please recheck citation 10 (page 6).