4 ms·
>keeping it out of academia [...] with no government funding for [academia]. If academia requires government funding, the government of the day will always cont
by whatshisface 2y ago
>keeping it out of academia [...] with no government funding for [academia]. If academia requires government funding, the government of the day will always control academia.
In this case, you'd have to transfer most research in the biological and physical sciences to NASA-style government departments, at the expense of communication between theorists and experimentalists, otherwise it would not occur. The present system is for "politically sensitive" positions like historians to be covered by endowments, and for economically service-providing research to be performed on government grants.
P.S. in some ways being controlled by people who are wealthy enough to hire professors is more politically charged than being controlled by a democratic government with checks and balances. Be careful who you wish for in matters of replacing the taxpayer's authority with that of private donors...
- saghm 2y ago> In this case, you'd have to transfer most research in the biological and physical sciences to NASA-style government departments I understand most of the points you've made, but I'm not sure I understand this part. NASA's budget is directly controlled by Congress, so how would moving all research into departments like that be more insulated it from government funding than university researchers getting grants? If anything, it feels like it would make it _more_ susceptible to politics than grants.
- whatshisface 2y agoThat's exactly right, it is the one other alternative and less independent. I think the government realizes that cutting government funding to universities at this extreme level would mean the end of US advantage in the biological and physical sciences, but the parent commenter might not have.