But that vaccine? Partially developed by one woman who was treated like dirt by U Penn because she insisted on pursuing mRNA vaccines, solely because she wasn't

But that vaccine? Partially developed by one woman who was treated like dirt by U Penn because she insisted on pursuing mRNA vaccines, solely because she wasn't bringing in enough federal grant money. Demoted. Supported by another faculty member to do it. U Penn now likes to try to take credit for it even though this research was done despite them, not because of it. This woman leaves university academics to pursue research through the private sector. She's doing fine, thank you, won a big award etc. But to me it's a perfect example, in that this vaccine you're mentioning, that saved the world in a literal sense, occurred despite the academic structure. That academic structure tried to stomp her out, expunge her from the department. I think it's totally appropriate, in this kind of climate, to point all this out. Are there advances? Sure, but it's more in the sense that the initial world conflicts of the early twentieth century slowly evolved in the midst of trench warfare in which humans were treated like fodder for the machine. I have a problem with the linked article only in that it's grossly misleading: the author seems to disagree with the elite overproduction thesis, but then essentially goes on to argue that there's an overproduction of elites, at least insofar as there's no resources to support them. But every one of those people who exits academics because they aren't given the opportunities, or are psychologically abused, or who don't have the right connections, or whatever, are another opportunity lost. So I agree with it in its substance. Academics is currently grossly dysfunctional. The fact that progress occurs at all is a strawman -- it's not about progress per se, it's about opportunity costs and lost life in time and suffering.