I read op's question about whether money was the primary bottleneck facing scientists.

And that's actually a reasonable question.

There is, unfortunately, a real efficiency problem in science.

The money spent is generally a great investment: you're not just funding discovery: you're also financially supporting millions of jobs that support discovery that include the businesses that sell to scientists and the restaurant staff in small college towns.

However if we look at where the money goes, it's long been an open secret that a lot of the support costs are taking unjustifiable slices of the pie. Examples include what's called "overhead expenses", which are essentially astronomical rents universities charge their science departments. Also, equipment and repair costs are wildly inflated.

I would like more funding of research, but I would also like reforms to limit this kind of exploitative price gouging in science. But to answer the question: yes, science would still produce more social impact faster if given more money.