> I think that may be conflating cause and effect. I'd argue a manned trip to Mars is a focus of pop culture because it resonates strongly with so many.
Game of Thrones, Star Wars, etc, also resonate with society. Things in those movies aren't necessarily worthy of exploring. Conversely, cancer research isn't represented well in pop culture... but that doesn't mean it doesn't warrant pursuit.
>Conversely, cancer research isn't represented well in pop culture
I'd disagree, with that sentiment(cancer awareness, research and prevention are widely popular; otherwise we wouldn't so tightly associate the color pink and breast cancer), but that's not really what I was getting at.
> that doesn't mean it doesn't warrant pursuit.
What I'm suggesting isn't that we should tailor our spending to match the frequency in which a subject appears in pop culture, but that humanity has an innate drive to explore. This drive manifests in both real attempts at exploration(NASA, WHOI, ESA, etc.) and fictional dramatizations of exploration that appear in pop culture.
Maybe a better example of a similarly inherent drive influencing pop culture is the one for sex. Pop culture's fascination with sex(and exploration) is merely a consequence fundamental human pursuits.
Game of Thrones, Star Wars, etc, also resonate with society. Things in those movies aren't necessarily worthy of exploring. Conversely, cancer research isn't represented well in pop culture... but that doesn't mean it doesn't warrant pursuit.