> Sure, but should scientists work for free?

I think the premise of the question is flawed.

I think science should be free and scientists should be paid a liveable wage as any other person should be.

People can write stories all day long, even stories that will be read by nobody. Scientists can do science all day long even science that benefits nobody.

But writing stories all day long practices the art without worry about a paycheck. Scientists doing science practices the art without worry about a paycheck.

Both can be done with personal computers these days. Personal computers are extremely cheap to have and to maintain. There's nothing stopping it other than politics.

Can you name at least one scientist whose work is supported significantly by publishing royalties, from the publication of that actual work?

As far as I know publishing royalties is not a source of income for most scientist.

I might go so far as to say essentially none. Quite a few have published popular books, like Thinking Fast and Slow, but I seriously doubt the money from that funded further work (and it would be a crappy way to run a scientific career).