This is an amusing example of how pervasive censorship coupled to the corporate takeover has created an atmosphere of fear within the academic community in the USA:
> "If the utmost end of the university is or should be the advancement and distribution of knowledge – an increasingly open question in some quarters..."
They just can't come out and say it openly - but the corporatization of the American academic system has resulted in a new primary goal for academic institutions: the generation of revenue streams. A secondary but closely related goal is to not damage any existing revenue streams (by, for example, demonstrating some negative side effects of a newly patented and lucrative drug / technology / etc.).
You won't find any career academics in the US system openly discussing this; that would be about as damaging to their career as criticizing Trofim Lysenko's plant breeding ideology in the USSR would have been for a Soviet scientist (although getting fired is less draconian than being exported to Siberia, I suppose). Some independent journalists have tackled it, however:
> "In the process, the university's culture of openness and collaboration on scientific discovery has eroded; and growing conflicts of interest, as well as the demands of start-up businesses operating out of faculty research labs, have the potential to negatively impact the professional development of future generations of scientists. The result of this trend poses what Washburn calls "the single greatest threat to the future of higher education""
It's not surprising that the authors of this piece don't dare mention this issue explicitly, though it is a bit pathetic.
> They just can't come out and say it openly - but the corporatization of the American academic system has resulted in a new primary goal for academic institutions: the generation of revenue streams. A secondary but closely related goal is to not damage any existing revenue streams (by, for example, demonstrating some negative side effects of a newly patented and lucrative drug / technology / etc.).
Then add to that the fact that much of their revenue comes from government funding, and you have a really toxic mix.
> "If the utmost end of the university is or should be the advancement and distribution of knowledge – an increasingly open question in some quarters..."
They just can't come out and say it openly - but the corporatization of the American academic system has resulted in a new primary goal for academic institutions: the generation of revenue streams. A secondary but closely related goal is to not damage any existing revenue streams (by, for example, demonstrating some negative side effects of a newly patented and lucrative drug / technology / etc.).
You won't find any career academics in the US system openly discussing this; that would be about as damaging to their career as criticizing Trofim Lysenko's plant breeding ideology in the USSR would have been for a Soviet scientist (although getting fired is less draconian than being exported to Siberia, I suppose). Some independent journalists have tackled it, however:
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/195083
> "In the process, the university's culture of openness and collaboration on scientific discovery has eroded; and growing conflicts of interest, as well as the demands of start-up businesses operating out of faculty research labs, have the potential to negatively impact the professional development of future generations of scientists. The result of this trend poses what Washburn calls "the single greatest threat to the future of higher education""
It's not surprising that the authors of this piece don't dare mention this issue explicitly, though it is a bit pathetic.