I would be interested to hear what people think is the [optimal] level of science funding. Science is vital, but how vital? Is it always better to put more money in to it? An idea of what projects were vital and how much spending is needed would be useful. How would it be devastating for the UK to lose its second place in science? More devastating than pulling out of Afghanistan, or increasing tax on bankers' bonuses or not building a high speed rail link to Leeds?