Let me start off by saying something you may not know. The big corporations and the 1%ers you have learned to hate fund many of the projects you’ve learned to love. I have not checked lately, but Murdoch and FOX corporation for several years in a row funded at a 50% or 60% level virtually all of the National Geographic specials produced. Major museums known for their great exhibits are often funded by the very corporations or individuals that the people who love those exhibits are (often justifiably) suspicious of. The great importance of private corporate or individual funding is also a factor for art museums, cultural entities like the Opera or Symphony, and of course, sports teams.
This is also true of educational institutions. You see this most obviously at schools of business or management. Say you want to visit the Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. It is named after Curtis Carlson, who was Chair of the Carlson Companies (Radisson). Curt also owned TGI Fridays. You might park in the Toyota Parking lot. Perhaps you are going to a meeting at the Medtronic Dining Room followed by a lecture at the Honeywell Lecture Hall. Later, for entertainment you might catch a game at Target Field, or Target Center, or the Xcel Energy Center. Or perhaps you’ll visit the Opera or Symphony. While you are there, be sure to check out the Wall of Donors to see the numerous large companies (mostly Minnesota based) or wealthy individuals who make big donations there.
Well, OK, you probably already knew that large corporations and wealthy individuals are footing the bill for many of the trappings of our civilization, including educational enterprises, and ranging from academics to high culture to sports.
We’ve seen the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics as a conduit for moving money from Big Fossil (large corporations that depend, we presume, on the rejection of climate change science) to scientists who produce roundly criticized work used by climate change denialist in Congress (via the mechanism of Congressional testimony) to avoid implementing science-sound energy and environmental policies.
It has been argued that the David Koch human evolution exhibit at the Smithsonian inappropriately downplays the critical role of human caused climate change as a problem facing our species. The exhibit does mention future challenges, and a warming planet, but conveniently leaves off the anthropogenic part.
A couple of years back, the University of Minnesota bailed out of showing a documentary on the Mississippi River, which included quite a bit of material on pollution of the river caused by agriculture, allegedly because Big Ag interests pressured the administration. It has been suggested that was only one of several examples of The U bending to the agricultural industry.
Recently there has been a move to ask natural history museums to reduce or eliminate funding from Big Fossil, and to ask folks like the Kochs to not be on their boards of directors. This makes sense because of the potential conflict of interest, but it could also be a form of institutional suicide if the funding from those sources is both very important and irreplaceable.
How much of the science done by major academic institutions is influenced by funding? It makes sense, for example, for Big Ag to fund laboratories, graduate fellowships, and research at these institutions because they benefit from the training and research. But it might also make sense for Big Ag to influence what research is done, perhaps who gets the results, and most importantly perhaps, what research (or results) is NOT funded, or repressed. Same with Big Fossil. Same with Big Pharm. Same with Big Whatever.
And, of course, the same can be said of large museums. I can name one large museum (but I won’t) that totally avoids human evolution (but not necessarily evolution in general) because there are private donors who don’t think humans evolved. The aforementioned human evolution exhibit funded by Koch is probably a mild example of bias. I’ve seen a lot of human evolution exhibits, and so far the few that are quite willing to challenge visitors’ religious or other anti-science beliefs were entirely state funded, as far as I know.
I think it is appropriate to ask the Smithsonian to dump the Kochs and their ilk as donors and board members, because such stark request can form the core of an activist approach that could cause positive change. But I also think we need to recognize the difficult position these institutions are in. We need not only to tell them to change how they do things, but to suggest alternative approaches and facilitate those approaches. Big educational exhibits at museums should routinely be funded by public money, as many already are. Perhaps private donations should be funneled through third parties that are devoid of nefarious intentions and shady ties. One approach in the US might be to tie tax benefits to such a thing. You can get a tax benefit from donating to a museum to produce an exhibit, but you get a better tax benefit if you donate to the NSF or NIH museum exhibit and educational endowments, which are in turn distributed via the usual mechanism of carefully developed requests for proposals with peer review. That would let the Kochs have part of their cake and we (the citizens) get to eat the other part.
The way research, education, and public engagement is funded has become a problem. What do you think? How should we solve this problem?
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
Solution: Go back to the tax rates and the number of tax brackets that the U.S. had back in the early 70’s.
Then use these proceeds to fund institutions like this, which will not be directed by or be done for the benefits of Big Whatever, but instead by government bodies that (on paper) are acting on behalf of a much wider slice of the American populace (namely, the Middle Class).
Conservative arguments that we need to lower tax rates on the rich are firmly discredited by the prosperity the U.S. experienced during the decades of progressive taxes with high marginal rates — as well as the economic decline and problems we’ve experienced in the last three decades.
And the argument that it’s not connected is refuted by the last time a political group was able to monkey with our tax schedules to benefit themselves: “The Roaring Twenties”. And we all know what the eventual result of that was…
Exactumundo.
The 1% blind themselves to the history of this ultimately self-defeating strategy for self-serving reasons (although Stephen King is famously aware of it). That’s expected.
The real question is “Why doesn’t the Middle Class get this?”
How do we educate the voting public about fixing the current sad state of our tax system before we repeat the 1930’s? This looms over us like… like… Climate change!
What is the Stephen King thing to which you refer?
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/30/stephen-king-tax-me-for-f-s-sake.html
If you Google “Stephen King tax rates” it will be the first of many.
Great essay! Should be required reading.
Alternative endowments look like a good approach to me. Early days, so far applied to divestment movement, but seems applicable here as well. http://www.fastcoexist.com/3043781/the-fossil-fuel-divestment-movements-newest-strategy-alternative-endowments
How will they heat the buildings?
Let’s ask this question from the other direction? Should the Smithsonian and other museums sell every thing they stand for and represent for 30 silver coins?
YES!
A good first step would be for museums, and research institutions like Harvard-Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, to refuse to sign contracts that give the donors right of review over anything the institution produces.
In the case of private donors like the Kochs, let them hold a press conference at which they declare something along the lines of, “We are giving $X millions to this facility. We will not review or influence what they do with our donation in any way.” And of course any written agreement should reflect that, and be independently witnessed as doing so.
Brainstorms: Great essay! Should be required reading.
Indeed it is, and should be.
Coincidentally, I watched The Shawshank Redemption for the first time two nights ago. (n.b.— The 1994 film is based on Stephen King’s novella Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption.) The film is not what I expected, but it is as good as I expected, and the “redemption” works on multiple levels.
I don’t think I’m spoiling it when I say that the central idea is a greedy official getting his comeuppance.
I’m developing considerable respect for Stephen King the writer. (Steve King, the Iowa pol, not so much.)
You could do what they do in the UK. museums are funded through taxes and are not dependent on donors. Also they don’t charge entry fees.
Phil, hardly all musea are free, only the National Musea, and in that case not even all branches.
And don’t mention taxes…you’ll give Americans a heart attack.
Museums and other similiar institutions shouldn’t agree to give donars the right to review all produces of the institutions.
If these institutions are funded by public money,they should let the public have a say in how the do things and approache things?
If these institutions are funded by public money,they should let the public have a say in how they do things and approache things?
Not only should they blow-off Big Fossil, they should actively demonize them as the Merchants of Death that they are.
AGW will kill more people than Mao, Stalin, and Hitler combined. They should lay those (future) deaths on the Fossil Fuel executives who funded AGW denial and the electing of politicians who would not deal with it.
The Fossil Fuel AGW denialism machine will cause the deaths of more people than all the wars of the 20th Century.
It will also cause HUGE financial losses, not least of which is the loss of real estate.
They should lay those (future) expenses on the Fossil Fuel executives who funded AGW denial and the electing of politicians who would not deal with it.
Let their greed lead to their penury.
David, that would be what doing good science would lead to! (Demonizing them, that is).
Brainstorms, yes, that is a good idea.
Actually, the good idea is this: Pass laws forcing these people & groups to put capital into escrow now to help pay for the destruction that’s starting and will grow in size & extent.
By realizing that they’re going to have to start parting with their dear, beloved money NOW, they’ll be motivated to begin taking steps to mitigate it. (Not because they care about people, the Earth, etc., but because they care about their dear, beloved money.)
They threaten what’s important to us. Threaten what’s important to them to create balance…
David Whitlock@16
The truth is completely the opposite! Without fossil fuel – the earth cannot sustain more than 3 billion people – that is: getting read of 4 billion – Hitler got read of only 50 million people AND many people say that Adolf was a naughty boy, what that makes the carbon molesters? Q: which people would fall off the truck first, if is not enough food in the west? A: producers will stay alive, because they would be needed – the parasite like the (CM) would turn into organic mulch.
Imagine if the harvester and tractor were ploughing the soil to produce food, on dollar and wind power… tractor would need lots of baked beans for enough wind-power… Solar powered trucks, to bring the food to the big city, the food would rotten on the way to the city – ships walk on water, but they drink lots of diesel. In other words: count your blessings for having fossil fuel – winging about fossil fuel is a bad omen… Do you know why are not many warmistas in Ethiopia and Somalia? you have 6 gueses!
Stefan, you should know that the only reason I let you comment here is because you are such a freak show that some will be entertained. Your intent, I’m sure. If not, you should see somebody.
“Entertained”… in the same way people view massive pile-ups on the freeways, or burning buildings, or a plane crash site.
I might say instead, entertained as in “clown show”, but the only one it would parallel would be the clown show in our Congress and legislatures: Scary, horrifying things being suggested that make no sense and would cause mass suffering if adopted & acted upon (which, sadly, some are in too many of those cases).
Perhaps the astute readership of this blog needs to see the extent to which the thinking of the general public can run off the rails… We might at times get too close to the trees to see that other parts of the forest are suffering root rot… Not everyone is as thoughful as the average scientist — though the tendency is to believe that others follow somewhat similar thinking. Stefan demonstrates (in the extreme) otherwise…
Trains are really good for transporting goods. Efficiency is on the order of 450 ton-miles per gallon. Trains are easy to run on electricity, and so can be made fossil fuel-free.
No-till farming reduces fuel consumption by a lot.
Off-peak electricity can be used to make hydrocarbon fuels and also used to fix nitrogen.
The potential of floating plantations to grow biomass has not even been discussed. Many plants can grow in sea water, which can supply all nutrients except for iron and maybe phosphorous. If all you are extracting is hydrocarbon biomass, then phosphorous needs are tiny.
We have to increase public spending on museums and similar public access to science, history, and art. Companies should be allowed to contribute only to a general fund in return for charity cred and tax breaks. But they must not be allowed to contribute to specific museums. There is no way that legislated noninterference can be enforced if company X contributes directly to Museum Z.
“Nice budget ya got there. Be a shame if anything should happen to it.”
****************
There are many clowns out there like Stefan, marching in brownshirts, armed, with red noses and clown shoes. Clowns they may be, but I’m not really laughing, and they may be the death of us all.
Should the Smithsonian and Other Museums Blow Off Big Fossil?
No, why must the Smithsonian and Other Museums Blow Off Big Fossil?
Unfortunately agreeing to all of this doesn’t improve the situation. And it is true that at this time we cannot live without fossil fuels. The General Fund is a brilliant idea, but I’m sure some Big company will find another way to manipulate the museums, researchers and knowledge available to the public in some way. After all, money is king! And without this funding, who will pay the bills?
How about letting the museums under the influence of these donors just admit to being run by them, without blatantly admitting to changing their research topics, exhibitions or information centers? For example, if a museum is being funded by a Fossil Fuel company, let the public know and inform them that a particular exhibition is no longer available according to the conditions of these sponsors. The public will see what is being hid by the company and will query it themselves.
Perhaps these major companies that fund the museums should take on the role of “silent partners”, that way they would be providing the funds without having any or much say in what is presented or produced by the use of those funds.
It is however understandable that these companies would like to have a say or be able to influence what their money is going to be used for. Most people or investors would not willingly invest millions of dollars into a museum, that would unintentionally blacken their name by being unaware of all the ongoing’s of the business, because said business has no influence over the content being published.
Perhaps these major companies that fund the museums should take on the role of “silent partners”, that way they would be providing the funds without having any or much say in what is presented or produced by the use of those funds.
It is however understandable that these companies would like to have a say or be able to influence what their money is going to be used for. Most people or investors would not willingly invest millions of dollars into a museum, that would unintentionally blacken their name by being unaware of all the ongoing’s of the business, because said business has no influence over the content being published.
u15000304
Perhaps these major companies should invest as ‘silent partners’, that way the funding would continue without the companies being able to influence the use of the money or presentations published thereafter.
‘ Philanthropy serves to silence any criticism of the practices of the donor.’
If we were to reject all donors that did not morally reach our own standards the lost would be catostrophic and the behaviour absurd.
We
‘ Philanthropy serves to silence any criticism of the practices of the donor.’
If we were to reject all donors that did not morally reach our own standards the lost would be catostrophic and the behaviour absurd.
We can criticise who we like for whatever reason.
Perhaps the billions spent on the new Hadron Collider would have been better allocated to the ebola crisis. Science itself is not free of moral judgement.
Who else will fund museums? Museums themselves should make policies that will reduce the influence of their donors on the information that they put out to the public. Furthermore, museums that generate thought are better than no museums at all. (u15021689)
magnocrat, you have totally missed the point!
It has little to do with “donors that did not morally reach our own standards”. It’s NOT the donors morals that are the issue here (directly, at least) — nor that which involves science. This is all about politics, especially politics that take aim at science.
The issue is donors who use their money as a lever to apply inappropriate pressure on the beneficiaries to get them to present propaganda that favors the donors, suppress criticisms and “inconvenient truths” that negatively impact the donor’s income streams/behaviors, and become a mouthpiece for the donors rather than serving the public good.
Yes, you can criticize who you wish for whatever reason. But neither you nor I have billions of dollars to amplify our “criticisms” to drown out others and become the dominant (and self-serving) voice on important issues.
Of course, not all philanthropy serves to silence criticism of the practices of the donor. But the Kochs and their ilk already have a bad track record here. They are now trying to control what the public thinks.
You might enlighten yourself by reading a famous work of one of your countrymen, George Orwell.
When it comes to educating the public, large companies should not have a say on what is presented and what is not. Obviously personal and corporate agendas get in the way. Such exhibits could be used to influence the public and especially children. Therefore it is up to the public to take responsibility and ensure educational exhibits are not privately funded. Whether it’s through annual or monthly donations or a fixed amount paid at the door of the museum, we need to take control. ( u15090648)
The way I see it is that it wouldn’t be easy for poor people to fund institutions like museums and schools,especially in third world countries so in order for the funding/donation to work it has to be in first world countries where everybody has a little bit more to spare and can afford to pay their taxes.
>>but Murdoch and FOX corporation for several years in a row funded at a 50% or 60% level virtually all of the National Geographic specials produced<<
Perhaps that explains why their quality is diminishing.
Has anyone considered some online crowd sourcing?
I’ve noticed that this is occurring a lot in the real world these days. There’s even a patron system for starving artists. People donate like $1 a month to the artist and get some special access. Thousands of people turn a little work into a money making venture for these people.
I agree with previose comments that museums are public funded instututets and can not be delegated by donars. Although in some case private donars do contribute alot of funds to some museums, museums stay a public instution and the public hase the final say.
As previously commented by others, the funding of museums has to be publicly and not restricted by the rule of donors from big companies with an input of the type of information allowed to be displayed at the exhibitions. Money will always be required to achieve the museums goal of sharing information with the public, thus funding is crucial, but a balance is needed for the cost of accepting the money from the sponsors.
This is a topic of conversation that many people will have differing opinions and views on. This will be due to what people think of about museums and what peoples’ views are on the way museums are run.
In my opinion I think that the government of a country should budget to help financially aid museums as museums are the homes of a communities and countries history. The history if a country is always iportant to maintain and thus should always continue to survive, what do you as the public think?
At the same time private donations should be greatfully accepted with no problems as this will allow the museum to carry on functioning. However, these donaters should not have a say on how the museum is ran or have any special treatment. Donations should just be given for donating sake.
To keep just anyone walking off the street and coming to museums i think that an entrance fee should be charged. This will help fund the museum further and keep a standard. I would like to know what other people think on my view and what your take is on this topic.
Donations to museums is something important and should be promoted regularly by government, citizens and the state at large. However, donations by private companies should be accepted as well but as said by Ethanne Liam Soar , with the exception of manipulating the museums.
Museums are important as they help in tracing back our human evolution( in case of fossil fuels ) , and in keeping the new generations interested in knowing more about the history.
Pulling large private donors from museums and other institutions could have a large and negative financial effect on the effective running of these places. Often these donours are largely responsible for the financial stability. A more appropriate solution could be ensuring the donor has has no influence over the institution. Museums are important resources of knowledge about history and if donations ensure the museums stay open, they are essential. u15051189
I agree with the previous comments that donations are important but they should not, however, be relied on as a source of income for museums because they are not dependable.
Budgeting finances is a good point mentioned by Ethanne Soar as it provides a more stable financial foundation for museums. Financially sustaining museums will not only support the museum itself, but also creates a promising future for aspiring artists.
I also agree that museums are important as they play a vital role in keeping a record of our history and educating the general public.
Many museums have been standing for many years and have successfully been thriving off the income generated from visitors. However I do feel that donations could help maintain these museums and keep them going. One will only want to visit a museum a certain amount of times, so donations will help where the drop in visitors has occurred.
It is a pity that just when one would think major companies are funding towards an educational operation that would actually benefit our world that now there is conflict of interests involved. I think, regardless of the fact that these institutes should move away from these fossil companies, these companies should be charged for this in any way possible. It is a tremendous shame and embarrassment to our scientific world. (u15062644)
I couldn’t agree more with you Bob. On this one I really couldn’t agree more that museums should cut off from fossil donors. But they have to find another donor other than the public which won’t work completely in my opinion.
Haha agreed on that one bob. On this one I really couldn’t agree more that museums should cut off from fossil donors. But they have to find another donor other than the public which won’t work completely in my opinion.
Museums and art galleries specifically in South Africa are empty and ruined. The cultural attractions in South Africa get less than no funding at all. The museums in South-Africa, for example The Museum Of Africa in Johannesburg, depend entirely on government funding, which is not much at all, they can barely pay all their staff with the funding not even mentioning the upkeep of the exhibitions.
Museums and art galleries depending on government funding will in no way turn down the help of any possible funder, not even if they don’t believe in “climate change” or “ evolution”.
The museums and art galleries in South Africa are desperate for any help at all and will go to the ends of the earth to attract or get the help they need. Because in South Africa we realize that government funding goes for housing for the government and not for anything that promotes the mental wellbeing of the public. Wink wink, nudge nudge.
Student Number: 15019072
I think that regardless of what consequences might occur when museums cut their ties from the fossil companies it is something that needs to happen, scientific research shouldn’t be funded by companies that have something to gain or loses from the results of the research but rather by companies that want to expand the general man’s knowledge of the scientific world.
i think people are looking at this in only one point of view, it not the companies problem that the project is not attracting investors enough. we have to make then believe that its wealth it.
In my opinion there will always be an issue with funding public centers of knowledge. Science in general strives to be as unbiased as possible, and our museums should reflect that. repressing information in museums, that is supposed to help educate and enlighten the public to our history and discoveries. It is the same as tyrants repressing the press and media to keep their people ignorant. Corporate funding is good for museums and similar institutions, but I agree with Christopher Winter, #10, companies can fund museums, but they should have no say over what is put on display or not. The link provided by Brainstorms #5 is fascinating. It’s critical issue as well that I don’t think enough people know about.
15000649
I read the article about Stephen King tax rates. Very interesting.
Its definitely a difficult position to put museums and educational institutions into. Its unfair to ask their major funding to step down from the board of directors and thus in turn withdraw their funding. However as said above by Sarel Vermaak Science is meant to be based on the lack of opinion but rather on the facts that are produced by long hours of research and in turn this research should, by right if not by anything else be displayed in museums for the benefit of all to be educated but instead people are being deprived of this opportunity by aristocrats with money in their pockets that now suddenly believe that the world should learn what they want them to learn? I think not. Museums and the general public should take a stand against this and as mentioned in the 10th comment, companies should be allowed to fund museums and other educational institutions with the benefits of having their name displayed but should have no say in what is done or what is displayed or taught, because unfortunately for them that is something the people should decide.
u15016677
The question basically boils down to this, do you donate money to support or do you donate money to gain control?
Donors should donate to institutions merely for the fact of aiding or advancing the cause of the institution.
However it is sad to see many cases where the donations are actually used to buy a “share” into the institution, making the donators owners not supporters. In this case the donations are used to as an lever to drive the agendas of the donators rather than the cause of the institution.
Well the 1%is not seeing the history of this self-defeating strategy, but Stephan King is aware of it, this is expected.
The most obvious solution to this problem would be to have the government fund the museum, but America in particular has a habit of not allocating taxes to where it is most needed. E.g the US budgeted $581 Billion for their military 2015 (At least twice as much as China, the second largest spender on military in the world) but only around $31 billion for General Science, Space and Technology and $120 billion on Education, Training, Employment and Social Services. It is entirely possible to government fund these museums, but the problem is much more complex than “Just let taxes fund it”. The government first needs to fix it’s own tax problems and get their priorities straight.
In my personal opinion the worst part is that it will ultimately be the poor and middle class who suffer because they won’t have access to fair indiscriminate science. If things continue the way they are, people will eventually start teaching that the earth is flat if there is an economical incentive to do so.
And we can’t just start kicking everyone off of the boards, because if we don’t have a strong foundation ready to support the extra burden then the entire system will collapse and there won’t be anything left to learn from.
Sources:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/28_1.pdf
u15011942
Please do this
There is no solution as long as people place greater value on self deception than truth. A civilization that lies to itself is doomed, and rightfully so.
if you want some one to help with funds you have to give them something. even if its for the science donors still need to have a reason for funding, to have more donors you need to put your word out there.
museums an research institution should try and refuse to sign contract that gives the donors any right that they can view what institution is producing. Thus this can reduce the number of people knowing things that has been produced.
self deception will destroy what is suppose to be beauty of science,becouse we cannot runaway from the fact that we need funding’s in order to advance science.
Museums are are too lenient, they should not let anyone see what they want, doneners are just like normal people they should not have extra privlages.
I don’t like museums, they bore me. But i did find the blog interesting. So thank you .
A big problem here is that whenever a funding body of any kind is involved in any kind of franchise, they’re going to want to have a say in the content the franchise they’re funding puts out.
So unless we come across a large self-sustaining, generous and somehow profitable organisation, I fail to see how we could eliminate that funding body influence without eliminating the funding body itself…which isn’t much of a solution at all