Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given the small amounts involved, it's worth the money just to figure out the source of experimental error. NASA isn't giving money to random kooks off the street, these are actual physicists in labs doing the work.
Steuard is too polite to point this out himself, so I will do it for him: he is a physics professor. That the amount of money is small is a measure of how incredibly unlikely he thinks any useful result would come from the experiments.
Thank you for the pointer, I have a bad habit of not noticing usernames anyway. That said I still think my argument is valid, if you are seeing an incorrect result in a simple experiment it's still worth lab time figuring out which of your instruments or equipment is introducing it, even if you have 0.00% confidence that it's anything special or interesting.