The Golden Goose awards do not exist in a political vacuum: they are explicitly designed to showcase the unexpected benefits of federally funded research in the US, and were meant as a rebuke to the earlier Golden Fleece awards, in which US senator William Proxmire would mock what he considered wasteful government spending — often on strange-sounding scientific projects.
Proxmire was not wholly wrong: some government projects are a waste of money, and some academics produce research of little value. But the lack of value is generally not because the research is “useless” but because the research is sloppily or even fraudulently done. Superficially interesting claims congeal on the surface of a steaming vat of confusion.
Unfortunately, politicians are not well placed to venture an informed opinion on the value of scientific research. The fact that research sounds silly or strange is no guide to its value. My own hunch — and it is just a hunch — is that it’s the research that seems obviously useful that is most likely to be polluted by bad science. The merely odd, purely curiosity-driven research is less likely to be tainted. Incestuous as it might seem, the people best placed to hand out funding for basic scientific research are other scientists.