Someone is making these value judgements. There's a reason why certain projects get funded while others don't.
If someone has no idea what research will yield results, and has no preference for what research gets funded, that's fine. But if all research is the same to them, they should probably let those who view certain research as more important than others to make the decisions about what gets funded.
There are people who are choosing, and there are reasons behind which might end up being better than others, but those are often half science and half politics. Sometimes the end up being done for less than justifiable reasons. One factor is looking at scientists that seem to have 'scienced' well in the past and favoring them over new scientists. This is more conservative in that less money is sent to random ideas that won't go anywhere, but also means that funding is trapped in more classical theories lead to incorrect models and theories sticking around for longer than they should.
If someone has no idea what research will yield results, and has no preference for what research gets funded, that's fine. But if all research is the same to them, they should probably let those who view certain research as more important than others to make the decisions about what gets funded.