> catalyzed, I would argue, by tragic lack of funding
No, you don't get it. There is tons of funding. But academia is a corrupt old-boys network. Those petty, conniving people rise to the top and ultimately control the system.
- A grad student (who regrets going to grad school)
From experience as a researcher in a country undergoing severe R&D funding cuts, I can tell you that the ones that are most likely to survive the lack of funding are the "corrupt old boys", who can exploit their contacts and their system-gaming skills to secure the little funding that remains. Promising young scientists that aren't under the wing of one of the old boys are much likely to suffer the raw end of the deal. Basically my perception is that the funding cuts made everything this article describes much more prevalent, not less.
So in my opinion, "catalyzed by tragic lack of funding" (note "catalyzed", not "caused") is a pretty accurate description.
I'd have to agree with this. With the possible exception of the cold war, in certain fields, there is more now than any time historically. Before WWII, "professional scientific research" was a pretty rare thing; certain large companies did it (out of which comes the "applied" and "pure" distinction in many older fields, I believe) and certain educational institutions (but most were essentially teaching gigs with a spare closet for lab space).
Now, there's lots of money, but lots of faces feeding at the trough, too. And lots of reasons why breeding more scientists who subsequently starve isn't going to stop.
Does that mean a lack of funding can't catalyze the issue?
Edit: Just for transparency (topical!) I did not downvote you, and totally agree that cronyism is a major (and yeah maybe causative) issue, but I also think the decision on how to fund is basically an entirely separate problem which really doesn't have an obviously good solution (in my mind).
But not all scientific research will benefit companies. Some will even be detrimental to large companies (disruptive technologies). Therefore blueskies pure science needs funding from some source other than industry.
What I do find disturbing is the trend to push University research towards immediately commercially viable stuff. Industry would/should do this stuff anyway.
What, like the pharmaceutical industry? I would argue that much good knowledge is created that way but it, too, has its issues. See much of Ben Goldacre's work.
No, you don't get it. There is tons of funding. But academia is a corrupt old-boys network. Those petty, conniving people rise to the top and ultimately control the system.
- A grad student (who regrets going to grad school)