4 ms·

I think what we call academia isn’t really academia, but a system that’s subservient to the desires of the state. The dollars come from somewhere and there are

I think what we call academia isn’t really academia, but a system that’s subservient to the desires of the state. The dollars come from somewhere and there are always strings attached. Sure, a tenured professor has more freedom than the average federal employee, but only because the state hasn’t felt the need to tighten the screws. If policy interests ever diverged from interests of the universities, I think we’d quickly learn that academia of today is not at all what it presupposes itself to be. It’s more of less the Ministry of Truth, to extent required by those who hold the purse strings.

periheli0n 4y ago
I think it is easy to produce vague allegations of a lack of integrity, but I would really expect more substance to such a critique. > ... desires of the state. The dollars come from somewhere and there are always strings attached. Is this suggesting that the public funders influence the outcome of research? It is not something I have ever witnessed. They sometimes may seek to take influence on the direction of a research programme, especially when the performance is below expectations. but I have yet to see an example where a public funder has attempted to influence research results. > I think we’d quickly learn that academia of today is not at all what it presupposes itself to be What does it presuppose to be? Academia of today is 1) a place of teaching and knowledge dissemination, 2) a place of research and knowledge creation, 3) a multibillion dollar business that sells tickets to successful professional lives. The latter leads to overinflated self-marketing, and unfortunately this affects how research results are communicated. Those who hold the "purse strings" have little interest in influencing research outcomes. Rather, they care about the reputation of their course (students), their own reputation (alumni), recruiting talent and/or outsourcing research (businesses), or actual research results (public funders). This is at least the case in most institutions in the US and the UK, and most of western Europe.
- 2devnull 4y ago
  “Is this suggesting that the public funders influence the outcome of research?” The funders decide what gets funded. One example, from Stanford, “ Stanford University receives hundreds of millions of dollars of funding from the NIH, without which researchers would not have the resources to conduct many worthwhile experiments and studies. NIH funding also confers prestige and status within the scientific community. At Stanford, it is very difficult for a biomedical researcher in her department to earn tenure without landing a major NIH grant. The attack by Collins and Fauci sent a clear signal to other scientists that the GBD was a heretical document.” https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/stanford-failed-academic-freedom-test https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/sta...

periheli0n 4y ago

I think it is easy to produce vague allegations of a lack of integrity, but I would really expect more substance to such a critique. > ... desires of the state. The dollars come from somewhere and there are always strings attached. Is this suggesting that the public funders influence the outcome of research? It is not something I have ever witnessed. They sometimes may seek to take influence on the direction of a research programme, especially when the performance is below expectations. but I have yet to see an example where a public funder has attempted to influence research results. > I think we’d quickly learn that academia of today is not at all what it presupposes itself to be What does it presuppose to be? Academia of today is 1) a place of teaching and knowledge dissemination, 2) a place of research and knowledge creation, 3) a multibillion dollar business that sells tickets to successful professional lives. The latter leads to overinflated self-marketing, and unfortunately this affects how research results are communicated. Those who hold the "purse strings" have little interest in influencing research outcomes. Rather, they care about the reputation of their course (students), their own reputation (alumni), recruiting talent and/or outsourcing research (businesses), or actual research results (public funders). This is at least the case in most institutions in the US and the UK, and most of western Europe.

2devnull 4y ago
“Is this suggesting that the public funders influence the outcome of research?” The funders decide what gets funded. One example, from Stanford, “ Stanford University receives hundreds of millions of dollars of funding from the NIH, without which researchers would not have the resources to conduct many worthwhile experiments and studies. NIH funding also confers prestige and status within the scientific community. At Stanford, it is very difficult for a biomedical researcher in her department to earn tenure without landing a major NIH grant. The attack by Collins and Fauci sent a clear signal to other scientists that the GBD was a heretical document.” https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/stanford-failed-academic-freedom-test https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/sta...