Mason  🏃‍♂️ ✂️

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.

Because, without any kind of institutional layer separating scholars from their founders, you'd turn scholars into massive sycophants. You saw how cravenly and pathetic Epstein's hanger-ons were? Now imagine if they depended entirely on Epstein's largess.

Even incredible funding institutions like the Arnold foundation, the Gates foundation, etc, channel most of their giving through institutional bodies instead of writing blank checks to scientists they directly employ. Let's get 100 different foundations in place instead.

1. Do you genuinely believe that Jeffrey Epstein is archetypal of a wealthy philanthropist? 2. Do you imagine that academic institutions and foundations do not systemically create sycophants *now*?

1. No, because most wealthy philanthropists put greater barriers between their donations and the people they donate money too. Epstein was unique in that his giving was a lot more direct and unmediated and depended upon his whims. 2. No, but they have other awful downsides.