I worked in the science funding area for more than 5 years. So much of the funding was locked down by pre-determined research outcomes related to government policy. Real innovation will likely take place outside of the government funding pipeline.
Proposals which question Science orthodoxy don't get funded or published. Topics like climate change, and other categories have funding attached to them in advance. It's not opened ended enquiry.
I definitely agree that govt funding is not perfect in regards to its bias, even pre-2020, but you can't genuinely argue that the private sector would do a better job at funding climate change research? the only private funding of basic research I know of is extremely limited to biotech and AI, am I wrong?
Out of curiosity, what specific research is being lost from academia that the private sector would need to pick up? Admittedly, I speak from ignorance as I haven't stayed on top of such in years, but I thought most of the core research was done and what we think of as "climate change" data now is actually produced by other subjects or permanent observation stations (studies of global meteorological patterns over time, satellites tracking temperature changes at all atmospheric levels, etc.).
You are right that the private sector has limitations too. I just noticed how narrow the potential topic pool was for funding science research in my limited experience. Plus, the team based approach to projects and potentially stifling peer review conformity, puts limits on outside the box thinking and innovation. A lot of modern research has a high cost footprint which only the government and large corporations can fund. AI could potentially lower barriers for independent projects.
Tim, your article captures something essential about the current moment: the US is not just seeing policy volatility but the most significant restructuring since Vannevar Bush. This carries real opportunities to address criticisms of the current system, but also risks if we dismantle alternatives before knowing whether the new approach works, and it needs to be studied rigorously. You also make a critical point: the US needs a strategy to retain the scientists it trains, as I argued in a piece this week in WaPo https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/12/01/america-visa-research-scientists-stem/ It's great to see more regular posts on the Macoscience Substack. The podcast series was excellent. Look forward to future articles.
How about some honest reflection about what got us here? What has been the result of postmodernism and critical theory on the purpose and pursuits of science? How has science moved more towards activism?
I worked in the science funding area for more than 5 years. So much of the funding was locked down by pre-determined research outcomes related to government policy. Real innovation will likely take place outside of the government funding pipeline.
do you have any specific examples?
Proposals which question Science orthodoxy don't get funded or published. Topics like climate change, and other categories have funding attached to them in advance. It's not opened ended enquiry.
I definitely agree that govt funding is not perfect in regards to its bias, even pre-2020, but you can't genuinely argue that the private sector would do a better job at funding climate change research? the only private funding of basic research I know of is extremely limited to biotech and AI, am I wrong?
Out of curiosity, what specific research is being lost from academia that the private sector would need to pick up? Admittedly, I speak from ignorance as I haven't stayed on top of such in years, but I thought most of the core research was done and what we think of as "climate change" data now is actually produced by other subjects or permanent observation stations (studies of global meteorological patterns over time, satellites tracking temperature changes at all atmospheric levels, etc.).
You are right that the private sector has limitations too. I just noticed how narrow the potential topic pool was for funding science research in my limited experience. Plus, the team based approach to projects and potentially stifling peer review conformity, puts limits on outside the box thinking and innovation. A lot of modern research has a high cost footprint which only the government and large corporations can fund. AI could potentially lower barriers for independent projects.
Tim, your article captures something essential about the current moment: the US is not just seeing policy volatility but the most significant restructuring since Vannevar Bush. This carries real opportunities to address criticisms of the current system, but also risks if we dismantle alternatives before knowing whether the new approach works, and it needs to be studied rigorously. You also make a critical point: the US needs a strategy to retain the scientists it trains, as I argued in a piece this week in WaPo https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/12/01/america-visa-research-scientists-stem/ It's great to see more regular posts on the Macoscience Substack. The podcast series was excellent. Look forward to future articles.
How about some honest reflection about what got us here? What has been the result of postmodernism and critical theory on the purpose and pursuits of science? How has science moved more towards activism?