Basic research is vitally important, and has contributed so much to society. Yet by its very nature you can't predict if how any specific piece of basic research will provide benefit.
It's a fundamental misunderstanding of basic research and scientific and technological development to expect to be able to know, and thus say, what the benefits might be.
Rather than expecting to be able to predict the benefits, we have to have a more 'statistical' set of expectations. That, on aggregate, and over time, basic research will provide substantial benefits.
And it's not just the general public who don't appreciate this. I find that many people working in applied research don't appreciate it either.
(And no apology needed... I shouldn't take things so personally.)
Of course, absolutely, explaining what we do is hugely important. Actually I think that bringing new knowledge to the rest of humanity is the second most important thing after actually generating said knowledge.
> can't be expected to appreciate your work if you can't explain it.
The frustration is that people only seem capable of appreciating science when it has direct and tangible benefits for humans. (and that's why i posted the previous post, not cause you dared ask a reasonable question)
"Why do you do this?" "What can we use this for in humans?"