The problem is now you have defined the goals of science depending on whether your doing the right kind of "good", and who your doing good for..
Which leads us to the reason we are having our discussion in the first place...

If we were doing science for sciences sake we would have access to the same funding that the universities have by the virtue of being able to put together a scientific proposal.

If we were doing science for sciences sake the sun would be solved because we would have equal time acess to telescopes and other tools.

We wouldnt have to wait several years for data products that tax payers paid for.
Instead because science is supposed to benefit society its turned to false time wasters like global warming or what ever fraud is big at the moment in the name of "saving the world(society).

In my view science is a tool. Does a gun benefit society? Depends on who you ask and whos life is at stake at that moment in time.

The moment you add "Benefit to society to the equation" you have colored your notion as to what should be your next step and I believe that science would actually be more of a benefit to societ because the "free energy technology or backengineered UFOs that the controllers of the world hold onto." would be in use.

To all of a sudden add in a subjective arbitrary qualification to the definition of science I believe renders science a less than useful tool, like saying you can only use a hammer to hit nails that are used for building houses...