I cannot remember the exact details, but there was also the case of the NAS publishing Russian anti-nuclear (commercial electricity generation) propaganda as if it were reviewed, supported scientific papers.
Multiple members of NAS requested clarification adn for the NAS to either take down teh papers or at least attach a note that they were not endorsing them and the NAS stalled, foot dragged and ultimately did nothing.
Anyone remember the specifics? I could probably dig an article or two out of the archives at atomicinsights.com (Rod Adams > 20-year-old blog) but I'm feeling lazy.
Hi Jessica - this is eye-opening. For your graph, looking at the Propublica 990s for "National Academies of Sciences" I might suggest an update to the graph that takes the trend back to 2011 since there is relevant variability. Overall revenue for more than 10 years has been steady at between $300-400M, with the outlier in 2013 at $783M. It would be interesting to see why the almost doubling for that one year. But as you also note — though the budget range has remained about the same with a reduction in Federal funding and a surge in venture capital / Big Tech wealth, the NASEM has been able to rely on new sources of funding from foundations and LLCs like Chan-Zuckerberg, Bezos Earth Fund, and Schmidt Sciences. The trade-off, as you correctly note, is that greater reliance on private funding comes with a broad range of concerns related to the shaping of research/policy agendas, stealth advocacy, and conflicts of interest. For historical context, I recommend veteran science journalist Philip Boffey's excellent 1975 book "The Brain Bank of America" and Stephen Jay Gould's review at the NYTimes in which he concludes: "But the myth of impartial expertise is false, and the committee reports have often been superficial, compromised or whitewashed."https://www.nytimes.com/1975/05/04/archives/the-brain-bank-of-america-the-other-scientific-method.html
OK, the logical outcome of power and influence peddling transitioning from within cabals of the holders of status and wealth in positions of authority to global networks and multinational corporations owning and using global networks of propaganda outlets of media and academia is now quite visible.
Edit: Never mind. That was the New York Academy of Science. Still worth a mention, but not strictly relevant.
https://atomicinsights.com/why-is-the-new-york-academy-of-sciences-allowing-its-name-to-be-used-in-an-anti-science-fud-campaign/?highlight=academy
I cannot remember the exact details, but there was also the case of the NAS publishing Russian anti-nuclear (commercial electricity generation) propaganda as if it were reviewed, supported scientific papers.
Multiple members of NAS requested clarification adn for the NAS to either take down teh papers or at least attach a note that they were not endorsing them and the NAS stalled, foot dragged and ultimately did nothing.
Anyone remember the specifics? I could probably dig an article or two out of the archives at atomicinsights.com (Rod Adams > 20-year-old blog) but I'm feeling lazy.
Excellent work. I suspect that similar COI's could be found at other government agencies like NOAA, EPA, AGU etc.
One other observation: If you go to the 990 for 'National Academies Corp" you will see that of 2023 each of the three academy presidents (NAS, NAM, NAE) earned more than $1M in compensation at 37.5/hours a week, as reported to the IRS via the 990. https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/942994279/202443109349303209/full
Hi Jessica - this is eye-opening. For your graph, looking at the Propublica 990s for "National Academies of Sciences" I might suggest an update to the graph that takes the trend back to 2011 since there is relevant variability. Overall revenue for more than 10 years has been steady at between $300-400M, with the outlier in 2013 at $783M. It would be interesting to see why the almost doubling for that one year. But as you also note — though the budget range has remained about the same with a reduction in Federal funding and a surge in venture capital / Big Tech wealth, the NASEM has been able to rely on new sources of funding from foundations and LLCs like Chan-Zuckerberg, Bezos Earth Fund, and Schmidt Sciences. The trade-off, as you correctly note, is that greater reliance on private funding comes with a broad range of concerns related to the shaping of research/policy agendas, stealth advocacy, and conflicts of interest. For historical context, I recommend veteran science journalist Philip Boffey's excellent 1975 book "The Brain Bank of America" and Stephen Jay Gould's review at the NYTimes in which he concludes: "But the myth of impartial expertise is false, and the committee reports have often been superficial, compromised or whitewashed."https://www.nytimes.com/1975/05/04/archives/the-brain-bank-of-america-the-other-scientific-method.html
Thanks! Agreed. I should have taken the trend back farther.
I believe the 2013 boost is related to money for the Gulf research Program as a result of the Deepwater Horizon incident.
OK, the logical outcome of power and influence peddling transitioning from within cabals of the holders of status and wealth in positions of authority to global networks and multinational corporations owning and using global networks of propaganda outlets of media and academia is now quite visible.
Ideas on adaptation? Anyone?