Let's use a hypothetical example. Imagine I'm a car salesman, and I move to a new town with 10,000 people. Am I likely to be better off if 1% of that population can afford to buy a car or 10% of that population can afford to buy a car?
No, it doesn't. It's quite simple, none of those advances in science and technology mean a damn to the economy if there's no consumers buying new products. A working class person is much more likely to spend £1000 into the economy faster than a rich person, mainly because their needs are more immediate. Spreading wealth around leads to a broader base of consumers and a healthier economy. Also, it's quite clear that the opposite (trickle-down economics) has been a dismal failure.
Research & innovation create new product categories. No amount of consumer spending invents new products.
I disagree with you that consumer spending boosts the economy. Look at the actions of central banks easing monetary conditions to try and boost spending. All they do is succeed in inflating bubbles that later produce busts.
Economic growth is a subject not completely understood by economists. Is is savings or investment? How does regulatory burden come into play? What about property rights and government corruption?
Potential consumer spending does create the space for new products.
Take VR as an example. The recent resurgence in VR has been made possible by the disposable income of gamers, especially PC gamers. Look at the high amounts of money being spent by gamers. If that disposable income did not exist, the resurgence of VR would look very different, and products like the Vive and the Rift are unlikely to have emerged.
As for whether consumer spending drives scientific research, depends on what you class as consumer spending. For example, do you class student loans as consumer spending? Do you class government taxes as consumer spending? I'd suggest that funding from a diverse group of people is more reliable than hoping a handful of rich people do the right thing.