Actaea

I don't like this issue about the ocean. Taking money from people to study things that have no significance in the development of current technologies or ways to solve various problems (for example, medicine) is not my thing. But the second one emphasizes the rejection not just of all "useless" research, but specifically of those that do not provide economic benefits.

The logic of "if it's not economically profitable, then it's not needed" has led us to the point where, instead of exploring space, we get a new iPhone every year. Of course, why should we explore the ocean or space? Let's invest in developing a convenient back scratcher so that people can sit in front of a monitor and feel a pleasant scratching without any effort, because that's what the common people want.
However, even if we approach this issue from the point of view of the people's needs, as Ment noted, knowledge gained in one area can often help in another.
So, there is no such thing as "useless" research. Any fundamental research expands knowledge about the picture of the world, contributes to the development of technologies necessary for its study, and much more.

Then the question is of a different nature: why is it not possible to allow the private sector to do this?

Because it is more profitable for the private sector to develop iPhones and back scratchers, it's obvious.