5 ms·
I don't see how it's sophistry, the author goes into great detail on the fact that MIT has long operated less as a university in the traditional sense than as a
by yborg 7y ago
I don't see how it's sophistry, the author goes into great detail on the fact that MIT has long operated less as a university in the traditional sense than as a contract R&D organization. The linkage made to Epstein is that the school has long cared little for the moral implications of its research as long as it brought in revenue to MIT, so soliciting funding from morally deficient individuals was an easy extension of this ethos. You may agree or disagree with the author's argument, but I don't see it as disingenuous.
- gumby 7y agoBut that has been true since WWII, as was clear to anyone who attended the school (or worked there). It's a large government research lab with a small (14% of revenue/16% of expenses) school attached.
- nvrspyx 7y ago> But that has been true since WWII, as was clear to anyone who attended the school (or worked there) Yeah, pretty sure that’s a tiny percentage of the general population. I don’t see how that invalidates anything.
- jhbadger 7y agoThat's pretty much true of any major US university. Other than small liberal arts schools, most US universities really run on NSF/NIH/DOE/DOD/Corporate funding.
- DonHopkins 7y agoIto's innovation was to hide the source of the money and take a big slice of it for his own investment funds as a reputation laundering "service charge". Did he think to patent that business model?