I think one of the fundamental problems with academic incentives - some of which I think played out here - is that grant funding is seen as an output, not an input. In other words, *getting* the funding is celebrated / counts towards career success more than what you actually do with it. Philanthropy, for all its limitations, is better in that sense because the donor is typically watching.
I think one of the fundamental problems with academic incentives - some of which I think played out here - is that grant funding is seen as an output, not an input. In other words, *getting* the funding is celebrated / counts towards career success more than what you actually do with it. Philanthropy, for all its limitations, is better in that sense because the donor is typically watching.
I think one of the fundamental problems with academic incentives - some of which I think played out here - is that grant funding is seen as an output, not an input. In other words, *getting* the funding is celebrated / counts towards career success more than what you actually do with it. Philanthropy, for all its limitations, is better in that sense because the donor is typically watching.