Quote (Thor123422 @ 13 Apr 2019 23:19)
Computer science - absolutely. You've seen the threads on Chinese hackers and the theft of intellectual property. That happens primarily via computers, and the government is currently in the process of trying to incentivize graduate education in security because we simply don't have enough M.S. and Ph.D. trained computer scientists to develop security algorithms.
Chemistry - absolutely. Mainly because it's fundamentally intertwined with the development of medicine and the study of biochemistry/physiology. It's much easier to get a grant if you pitch it as "this could be used as an inhibitor of whatever enzyme" compared to pure science.
Physis - again, absolutely. My introduction to physics professor had a grant from the military to develop materials with specific properties.
Remember that basic science and applied science aren't actually separate entities. The distinction only exists in if you are developing an application at that moment, but in five years any "pure science" can become applied.
Uh... I think you and I have a different understanding of the word "politicized". When I talk about a field of science having been politicized, I mean that the findings, methods, reliability, scope or other aspects of the field's substance are questioned, exploited or misrepresented for political reasons.
So, for example, the government giving extra scholarships to train computer scientists for cybersecurity in my humble opinion is qualitatively different from politics questioning the reliability of findings in climate research, or ethics and morals messing with medical research protocols. I'm talking about cases where the
scientific integrity of a field is compromised out of political reasons.