While the universities are increasingly corporatised and militarised, their governing structures are becoming more authoritarian, faculty are being devalued as public intellectuals, students are viewed as clients, academic fields are treated as economic domains for providing credentials, and work place skills, and academic freedom is under assault.
— Henry Giroux, philosopher of education
R&D is an extremely lucrative business. To illustrate its scale, Malaysia spent US$10.14 billion (RM46.1 billion), and the US invested US$679.4 billion (RM3.1 trillion) in R&D in 2022 alone. Naturally, with such significant investments, scientists are expected to deliver results that satisfy their investors.
Let’s delve into the world’s largest science producer and research centre, Harvard University. According to their 2022 financial report, almost half of the university’s US$5.8 billion (RM26.5 billion) revenue came from philanthropy funding, with research and tuitions combined accounting for 38 percent of the total revenue.
The figures are intriguing. The world’s largest research centre generated US$986 million (RM4.4 billion) in revenue from research and received US$2.6 billion (RM11.76 billion) in endowments and gifts. In 2020, only three donations to Harvard totalled US$431 million.
Who funded Harvard in 2020? The puzzle pieces fall into place: Len Blavatnik (Soviet-born British-American billionaire with close ties to the Russian oligarchy), Hansjörg Wyss (founder of The Hub Project, a leading vehicle for funnelling “dark money” on the political centre-left in the US), Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Kenneth Griffin (founder of the Citadel hedge fund, national finance chair of the Republican Party of the US), the government of the United Arab Emirates, Bloomberg (the media company), and, of course, the estate of David E. Rockefeller.
Commonly, the donors dictate where their “philanthropist” giving must go. For example, Blavatnik’s 200-million-dollar donations were aimed at “solving some of humanity’s most acute biomedical challenges.”
With this funding comes a myriad of expectations, directions, and instructions that influence the research and education guidelines of the university, ensuring it conforms to the donors’ agendas.
Particularly intriguing is the fact that most endowments are directed toward the humanities and healthcare departments, where opportunities for mass manipulation can arise.
These research guidelines and policies dictate what research can and cannot be conducted by a school. As a result, researchers and students are not at liberty to pursue research on questions that matter to them if they contradict the guidelines. Instead, they are often told what questions to ask or are influenced to focus on topics that benefit the paymasters.
The systematic manipulation of research has long become ingrained in academia’s DNA, shaping generations of academics to think within the established confines.
Consequently, science becomes tamed by the leash of the powerful. Even if a handful of scientists challenge the status quo, research committees and academic journals ‘safeguard’ us against alternative viewpoints.
Conducting and publishing accurate and reliable research becomes near impossible without grant money and facilities. If a young scholar dares to think outside the box, they risk being cancelled and de-platformed, not only by the academic community but also by a public conditioned to dismiss unpublished research.
Even if an article outside of the accepted narrative gets published, having worked all the Twelve Labours of Hercules, there is always room for retraction and deplatforming even after publishing.
This is how knowledge is taken hostage by the powerful. If it does not serve their agenda, it is silenced. What we are left with is a fetish for peer-reviewed science, devoid of integrity and honesty.
It once again comes down to controlling narratives: those who control research shape our perception of the world and its workings.
There is little to be done about this hostage situation. However, we must maintain a high level of scepticism towards what we are fed as “science.”
Sometimes the alternative narratives may be mere conspiracy theories, but sometimes, they might be closer to the truth than their peer-reviewed counterparts. Keeping open mind towards challenging the common narrative allows us to assert our discretion in building our belief system and contributes to academic freedom.
Independent research has no platform to be seen, and official, published research is biased and agenda-driven. By controlling universities and academic publications, the powerful ensure that we have a narrow tunnel vision of the world and its affairs, and what matters remain in the dark.
To make matters worse, the public is conditioned not to trust research that has not been conducted through “proper” channels, making it more difficult for alternative opinions to be expressed and discussed.
The views expressed here are those of the columnist and do not necessarily represent the views of New Sarawak Tribune. Feedback can reach the writer at beatrice@ibrasiagroup.com
