Mason  🏃‍♂️ ✂️

I'm really worried about the 2nd order effects. For example, Epstein had a bunch of really successful academics that were cravenly sucking up to him for cash - if rich person patronage becomes the norm, you'd start to see it as a de facto requirement in tenure applications.

For example, it's basically an unspoken rule at many universities that in order to get tenure in biomedical research you need a certain number of renewed RO1 grants. I can see a grim future where scientists have to have a certain number of patrons to be considered for tenure.

would you need an institution if you were paid directly by a benefactor?

That would probably be even worse. At least an institutional layer (poorly) insulates a scientist from the whims of their patron.

Institutions are worse. But if you don't believe so, fine with me. You can keep the institutions. I'm just suggesting they have to compete for minds with a funding infrastructure that might be a bit less... what's the word... soul-shattering

Chasing grants is the worst part of an academic career and I'm incredibly glad that's behind me now. I think encouraging more giving by the ultra wealthy is a great goal, but, direct funding of scientists is troublesome.

I'd like you to articulate exactly what's worse about a world where scholars — and I explicitly say "scholars" rather than "academics," here — may be able to do their work with an individual's support rather than enduring what would otherwise be "the worst part" of their career.