Not a knock against your research field (and at least you acknowledge where the $ comes from), but after hearing totsynth grinders complain about how the US govt screws them via lack of funding for their projects (many of which -from particular labs- are of dubious worth and only seem to serve in further engorging bloated graduate programs), a comment on the entitlement many researchers feel for othersā money:
Currently, academic basic research funding largely (almost completely) comes from the public via govt $$$. As shown in some links I mention below, the public has proven a willingness to provide sufficient funding even for niche projects and even in economically lean times while paying taxes to a govt that is apparently, to some degree, failing to represent their basic research funding interests.
Furthermore, the grants from NIH, etc. for a particular research project dont go entirely to the researchers. That makes sense since the University provides overhead which needs to be paid for somehow. However the percentages of the public money that goes to overhead seems incredibly skewed. I think the average person would be surprised. This, in no insignificant part, may have enabled Universities in becoming these bloated, topheavy bureaucracies that have turned to extracting money from customers over a major part of their lifespan via an ironclad (a unique bankruptcy exception) loan system. Often, there is no responsibility for the Univ. to even ensure that the overhead portion goes to overhead for the research project of concern.
Harvard may have the best minds, but Ive heard stories of some of their decrepit facilities. With ~70% overhead, wouldnt a typical customer wonder where their $ is going? Just like in other business areas, the established Univ.s/businesses can afford to navigate/negotiate with the govt while smaller entities get left in the dust (regulations help the rich get richer).
This is what happens when you have a funding intermediary which has demonstrated both its corruptibility and ineptitude in financial matters. The people no longer have a direct connection to their money surrendered via taxes, so they lose direct interest in how its value is distributed.
Is the Govt middleman even necessary today?
Academic research departments obtaining funding from citizens directly via crowd sourcing:
Apparently it is also going on to some extent in the west coast:
This link has another take on the matter. And also references the origins of Microryzaā¦
The crowdsourcing model cuts out the middleman (which decides what gets funded and skims off top) while showing that preserving the connection people have with their money can be used to allocate *basic[/i ](not solely applied) research funds much more efficiently. The direct line of communication can enable people to see more clearly where their $ is going. And Im sure the strategy will only increase in pop[ularity.
What would be arguments against dismantling an obsolete public funding system and giving money back to people? People who are now able to better inform themselves regarding what to do with their money and to get better mileage out of it.
Would that constitute throwing the baby out with the bathwater? If so, please describe baby