Eisenhower’s January 17, 1961 farewell address has become firmly recorded in the minds of the electorate. This is because of his famous conception, “The Military Industrial Complex.” Eisenhower was profoundly prescient in his caution and his admonition has become widely recognized as “spot-on.”
A few sentences later in the same farewell address he further admonishes, “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money, is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.”
Unlike his MIC, old Dwight’s “AIC” (Academic Industrial Complex) has gone unacknowledged though certainly its growth and “metastasis” has remained "quietly" of little note. That is because to cite its existence and the growth of its strangling tentacles, it offends the “political sensibilities” of those who oppose the founding ideals of America.
The opponents of America’s founding ideals have built BOTH Industrial Complexes, though for different justifications. It would seem that, for what is perhaps the first time since their decades -long metastasizing, both are about to receive “diagnosis” and “treatment.” I have a fundamental recommendation in dealing with these malignancies.
Skip “radiation,” together with whatever “hormone treatment” thought useful, and any “Chemotherapy” – however politically or administratively powerful. Conversely, institute complete agency/department/regulatory mastectomies on the AIC while administering appropriate doses of whatever “works” on the MIC. Why? Human nature and another conception coined by a relatively obscure “academic,” one George Stigler in the 1970’s. A conception he termed, “regulatory capture.”
No less emergent than the MIC or AIC, regulator capture has become as certain as government corruption. Therefore, the possibility of “capture” must be eliminated by “excise!”
Great article. I worked for the federal government for 31 years as a research scientist. In my field, electromagnetics, we had sponsors both from private industry and from government agencies. In fact at one point, I worked for the Telecommunications Industry, and used science to take down the government's arguments, and then was funded by those same government agencies to make the science better. I am a purist at heart and seek the truth, we were not swayed one way or the other to modify our findings to fit the agenda.
There are many good scientists in the government that want to work purely on the science, but I also noticed that during the "Covid pandemic", many of these same scientists failed to do the actual research necessary to find out that this virus, like Professor Battacharya, was no more lethal than the flu. Being a scientist that wanted to know the truth, I dug into the statistics and came to my own conclusions. I because they were about to enforce the vaccine mandates and disagreed vehemently with my boss about the mandate. He was a go-along to get-along type of supervisor. I was very disappointed in the scientists.
There are also those scientists who did not put their full heart into the study of science and just took the system for a ride.
I thought that my duty was to the truth and I conducted my research without bias, but I do understand that we all have biases. That is why when we write a paper it goes through the review process, although this has also now become corrupt. That is also why other scientists took my findings and tried to duplicate them. There were disagreements in our team and with our sponsors sometimes about the best way to interpret the data or to decide which experiments were to be conducted next to get to the truth.
I enjoyed my time in the sciences, but when it became too political, I left.
Hi Chris, thanks for sharing your experience. I didn't mention it in the article, but absent government involvement, I'm pretty sure the marketplace would find better and competing review processes that would ensure that if one became corrupt, others would quickly fill the void.
I would agree, unfortunately, we all grew up under the "We Need The Government" umbrella, so it will be very difficult to find that truly free marketplace, but I am hopeful. Our Broomfield City Council are all progressives and man do they think we don't have a brain in our head. We also need more scientists that care about the truth and not fame or notoriety. Unfortunately, we are dealing with mankind. Self-governance is hard to come by. Thanks for your book and your substack. I learned a lot from all of you last year.
Eisenhower’s January 17, 1961 farewell address has become firmly recorded in the minds of the electorate. This is because of his famous conception, “The Military Industrial Complex.” Eisenhower was profoundly prescient in his caution and his admonition has become widely recognized as “spot-on.”
A few sentences later in the same farewell address he further admonishes, “The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money, is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.”
Unlike his MIC, old Dwight’s “AIC” (Academic Industrial Complex) has gone unacknowledged though certainly its growth and “metastasis” has remained "quietly" of little note. That is because to cite its existence and the growth of its strangling tentacles, it offends the “political sensibilities” of those who oppose the founding ideals of America.
The opponents of America’s founding ideals have built BOTH Industrial Complexes, though for different justifications. It would seem that, for what is perhaps the first time since their decades -long metastasizing, both are about to receive “diagnosis” and “treatment.” I have a fundamental recommendation in dealing with these malignancies.
Skip “radiation,” together with whatever “hormone treatment” thought useful, and any “Chemotherapy” – however politically or administratively powerful. Conversely, institute complete agency/department/regulatory mastectomies on the AIC while administering appropriate doses of whatever “works” on the MIC. Why? Human nature and another conception coined by a relatively obscure “academic,” one George Stigler in the 1970’s. A conception he termed, “regulatory capture.”
No less emergent than the MIC or AIC, regulator capture has become as certain as government corruption. Therefore, the possibility of “capture” must be eliminated by “excise!”
Good reminder, Anders!
Dave
Hi Anders,
Great article. I worked for the federal government for 31 years as a research scientist. In my field, electromagnetics, we had sponsors both from private industry and from government agencies. In fact at one point, I worked for the Telecommunications Industry, and used science to take down the government's arguments, and then was funded by those same government agencies to make the science better. I am a purist at heart and seek the truth, we were not swayed one way or the other to modify our findings to fit the agenda.
There are many good scientists in the government that want to work purely on the science, but I also noticed that during the "Covid pandemic", many of these same scientists failed to do the actual research necessary to find out that this virus, like Professor Battacharya, was no more lethal than the flu. Being a scientist that wanted to know the truth, I dug into the statistics and came to my own conclusions. I because they were about to enforce the vaccine mandates and disagreed vehemently with my boss about the mandate. He was a go-along to get-along type of supervisor. I was very disappointed in the scientists.
There are also those scientists who did not put their full heart into the study of science and just took the system for a ride.
I thought that my duty was to the truth and I conducted my research without bias, but I do understand that we all have biases. That is why when we write a paper it goes through the review process, although this has also now become corrupt. That is also why other scientists took my findings and tried to duplicate them. There were disagreements in our team and with our sponsors sometimes about the best way to interpret the data or to decide which experiments were to be conducted next to get to the truth.
I enjoyed my time in the sciences, but when it became too political, I left.
Chriss Hammerschmidt
LPR Class of 2024
Hi Chris, thanks for sharing your experience. I didn't mention it in the article, but absent government involvement, I'm pretty sure the marketplace would find better and competing review processes that would ensure that if one became corrupt, others would quickly fill the void.
I would agree, unfortunately, we all grew up under the "We Need The Government" umbrella, so it will be very difficult to find that truly free marketplace, but I am hopeful. Our Broomfield City Council are all progressives and man do they think we don't have a brain in our head. We also need more scientists that care about the truth and not fame or notoriety. Unfortunately, we are dealing with mankind. Self-governance is hard to come by. Thanks for your book and your substack. I learned a lot from all of you last year.