No and I'm having a hard time articulating what I mean. First, I am no longer in academia. :) I left because it felt a lot like an extension of government. I am not a fan of how the funding operates at all.
I was trying to say that I believe there is value or at least there can be value in the advancement of human understanding without it being tied to a social or business outcome. It seemed that the main thesis of this article was implicitly denying that value by stating that Ph.D.'s should be required to show the real-world impact of their work.
As others said, the Ph.D. students themselves don't really "chase funding" but their options are a result of chased funding, I suppose.
During a PhD you don't have to chase funding- either you have funding (via a scholarship etc) at which point it normally lasts for the three or four years you're expected to finish your PhD, or you don't, in which case you probably don't start at all- unless you can pay the PhD fees and your expenses out of your own budget... in which case you don't need "funding" (in the sense of funds given to you from some source specifically to do research).
Funding is simple. It's all about experience and prior use. Funders fund what they did before, what the fundees did before, and did they use up the funds from last time.
Well, there is chasing funding. In your area of the universe, does the money follow worthwhile problems?