is ludicrous -- I've been offered more than double my UC salary to work in the private sector. I have declined, so far, not because of the direction of the employer (which would be minimal), but because I prefer the day-to-day interactions with students and faculty at the university as they are, on average, noticeably brighter than the people (other employees, but mainly customers or potential customers) with whom I interacted while on leave at the company making me the offer. NSF (and the NIH), by the way, have fairly low caps on how much they will pay support of an annual salary. While some of the redundancy in research is certainly wasteful, we have to remember not all redundancy is wasteful, and that even research that has been ridiculed for it's obviousness has produced new and unexpected research. Similarly, when access to research technology is fiscally restricted, there's a danger that governments and corporations will have more control of who gets to do research and what research they get to do. This goes against crucial scientific principles, and turns science into political puppetry. We have to be very careful that we don't interfere with free inquiry, access to research results, and independent confirmation, or we won't be doing science anymore. yes, good points. Obviously, governments should never have a direct say in who exactly gets research money. And yes, I'm not saying reduced spending is a good thing and not damaging to present research. But if the assumption is