The US government doesn't subsidize university research. Rather, universities subsidize government research.
I've seen recent threads deceiving the first half of this, but nothing recent describing the extent to which universities are doing the subsidizing.
The US decided it was in its citizens' best interest to lead in science and technology.
They could have done so through national labs, like some other countries, but instead they invested most funds in private/state partnerships, which saved taxpayer money and allowed access to renowned scientists.
This benefits taxpayers in a few ways:
1) Rather than the US paying career-long salaries to researchers, they only pay for projects they deem worthy (through competitive grants). However, researchers need to stay sharp (and fed) between grants. Private and State universities pay that cost.
2) Even on individual US grants, universities pour a lot of money into supporting those specific research endeavors.
Grants don't often cover full salaries, and the "generous" indirect/overhead rates the US offers don't fully cover the full of costs equipment / electricity / other essentials.
3) The US invests heavily (compared to other countries) in "basic" research that may not benefit society for 30-50 years (e.g., science behind GLP-1s, iPhones, the Internet). *Even then*, research too basic for the gov is covered by university seed funding, which paves the way for US investment.
In a hundred small and large ways, universities pour money into taxpayer investment into research, often matching or exceeding each government dollar spent, which eventually pays dividends for the US public in terms of public health, technology available, quality of life, etc.
Tax exempt status for universities allows taxpayer research money to go even farther.
Among other things, it allows the wealthiest among us to further subsidize US research through private, tax-exempt donations. This pays for the facilities (etc.) that attract world-class researchers to the US.
If the US conducted this research themselves exclusively in national labs (which we also do to a lesser extent), it would mean the only dollars spent on research would be those spent by taxpayers.
Instead, universities amplify and subsidize national research spending, to the benefit of all.
End of thread, but ugggggh the first post should be "describing" instead of "deceiving"!
P.S. There are other threads to be written on the different ways US dollars flow to universities, the different ways the US funds research, the ethics of tuition subsidizing US research infrastructure, my opinions on how universities ought to be funded, etc. Those threads are not this thread.
P.P.S. Since this thread is making the rounds, I should add: DOGE fired me, so hire me please =]
I've seen recent threads deceiving the first half of this, but nothing recent describing the extent to which universities are doing the subsidizing.
The US decided it was in its citizens' best interest to lead in science and technology.
They could have done so through national labs, like some other countries, but instead they invested most funds in private/state partnerships, which saved taxpayer money and allowed access to renowned scientists.
This benefits taxpayers in a few ways:
1) Rather than the US paying career-long salaries to researchers, they only pay for projects they deem worthy (through competitive grants). However, researchers need to stay sharp (and fed) between grants. Private and State universities pay that cost.
2) Even on individual US grants, universities pour a lot of money into supporting those specific research endeavors.
Grants don't often cover full salaries, and the "generous" indirect/overhead rates the US offers don't fully cover the full of costs equipment / electricity / other essentials.
3) The US invests heavily (compared to other countries) in "basic" research that may not benefit society for 30-50 years (e.g., science behind GLP-1s, iPhones, the Internet). *Even then*, research too basic for the gov is covered by university seed funding, which paves the way for US investment.
In a hundred small and large ways, universities pour money into taxpayer investment into research, often matching or exceeding each government dollar spent, which eventually pays dividends for the US public in terms of public health, technology available, quality of life, etc.
Tax exempt status for universities allows taxpayer research money to go even farther.
Among other things, it allows the wealthiest among us to further subsidize US research through private, tax-exempt donations. This pays for the facilities (etc.) that attract world-class researchers to the US.
If the US conducted this research themselves exclusively in national labs (which we also do to a lesser extent), it would mean the only dollars spent on research would be those spent by taxpayers.
Instead, universities amplify and subsidize national research spending, to the benefit of all.
End of thread, but ugggggh the first post should be "describing" instead of "deceiving"!
P.S. There are other threads to be written on the different ways US dollars flow to universities, the different ways the US funds research, the ethics of tuition subsidizing US research infrastructure, my opinions on how universities ought to be funded, etc. Those threads are not this thread.
P.P.S. Since this thread is making the rounds, I should add: DOGE fired me, so hire me please =]