Our universities have become inhouse research centers for the corporations. If the corporations are taking over our military (Blackwater), our government (lobbyists), and our schools (grants), at what point do we realize our democracy has become a corporatocracy?

Fascism: an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests inferior to the needs of the state (Wikipedia). It would appear that generally tied to a mass movement is obsolete in this case.

This all began in earnest back during WWII when the government saw a way of enlisting the best minds to their cause and universities saw a near endless source of funding for their facilities.

Basic research grants begat, program development grants, begat specific project proposals and step by step academia was seduced into the service of the war making machine. The next logical stepwas enrollment in the corporate infrastructure that became the military-industrial-congressional-think-tank complex.

How good it would be if the forest products industry were under the same scrutiny as the petroleum industry. The scenario described in this article ("In a very real sense, the university becomes the lab of the company") is the identical scenario that exists in universities all over the country that have schools or departments of "forestry" or the same cloaked in some verbal disguise, such as the University of Wisconsin's "Department of Forest Ecology and Management", an entity with so little "ecology" independent of industrial interest that it would rattle in a thimble. The system of monetary exchange is the same, but in terms of magnitude, that enjoyed by the forest products industry is vastly greater than what exists for petroleum. The forest products industry is so deeply entrenched within the American university system that the fact that the university has become that industry's "lab" is now accepted as normal. Even biologists in departments of biology, botany and zoology - biologists not defined by some industry and located literally next door to forestry departments - allow to continue this domination of the academic world by an industry that has the temerity to describe its silviculture, which is tree farming pure and simple, as "ecology".

For more on this topic, check out Jennifer Washburn's writings: http://www.newamerica.net/people/jennifer_washburn.

It's nice that industry is finally "helping out" by encumbering some of the cost of training their future workers (sarcasm).

In practice, it puts restrictions on what researchers can publish, does not broadly benefit the disciplines involved, leads to slushy patent arrangements -- and it turns out that tuition doesn't get cheaper as a result anyway. The institution of higher ed. is starting to look more like corporate America. Seems increasingly as if tuition-paying undergrads and the taxpayers are subsidizing high-pay faculty (CEO's, basically) & industry, with the help of cheap graduate student labor, to reap some enormous private profits. It's really t

Washburn posed an excellent question, namely that the public would be in an uproar if the government exercised this much censorship of research -- but that corporate America's ability to stiffle the dissemination of findings, and the University's collaboration, is commonly accepted.

But is it sustainable? I really doubt it. That some states are cash-starving their universities is illustrative of what the public feels about them. So long as these slushy arrangements exist, the public will think increasingly less about them.

I am the first to agree that there are reasons UCB should go carefully into this relationship. However, the commentary and responses above neglect the fact that UC Berkeley and Berkeley Lab have been pursuing a research program in cellulosic ethanol and other alternative energy sources for years. BP's invitation to compete for this funding is almost exactly what they were going to do anyway -- except on a much smaller scale. If executed properly, the Energy Biosciences Institute respresents a huge opportunity to do something right.

I would also add (in response to Washburn's comments referenced above) that you shouldn't blame BP or any other private industry for anemic education funding. It's our lawmakers that are increasing school costs. Every time an enterprising public institution successfully expands its own support system, there's a legislator there to reduce its public core funding base. Here in California, state legislators see lottery proceeds come to schools and start slashing the K-12 budget. The more successful PBS gets at fundraising, the more the feds cut from public radio. Preventing enterprising schools from seeking extramural funding doesn't decrease tuition either. Elected officials (and by extension, society) is responsible for ensuring that public funding levels of public institutions grows (or at least stays even).

Its not good to science , it has to invent new in day today life it is not for the sale am agree for this first ,but after finding the some thing not good .......
--------------------------
Lara
Houses for sale in Berkeley, CA