In what manner does the federal government restrict private funding for "big" science?
What effects exactly are you referring to as "not pretty"?
I'm not saying you don't know what you are talking about, but that's a pretty big swipe you're taking at the government, and I don't know you from a refrigerator salesman.
Hansen babbles on with an astonishing lack of verifiable data, details on the restrictions, or a viable theory, and is apparently a darling of SeeBS & NYSlimes, which is fine, they don't let facts get in the way.
This is Freerepublic. Gotta have facts here.
What effects exactly are you referring to as "not pretty"?
I am glad you asked. The universities have become addicted to federal research money. This has had at several unfortunate effects.
First, while the federal government does not restrict private funding, universities generally do not lust after private money with the same fervor as they do taxpayer money. Indeed, corporate money is considered tainted, especially if it is intended to address the practical needs of a business. Corporations may not be as generous with overhead money as the federal government is. Also, corporations typically expect to retain intellectual property rights in the research they fund.
Second, because the universities want taxpayer dollars, they must meet the priorities of the federal funding agencies. Consequently, the program heads at places like the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Department of Defense (DoD), and the Department of Energy (DoE) largely determine what research will be done in this country. One unfortunate result of this is that politically well-connected institutions have an unfair advantage in getting research money. Worse, the funding agencies tend to support "safe" or "trendy" research; they do not want to fund "risky" research.
Third, the government research dollars have provided incentives for the universities to neglect their educational missions. Undergraduate education is considered a necessary nuisance. Having professors teach would take them away from their primary mission of bringing in research dollars. Consequently, the task of teaching undergraduates is increasingly given over to graduate students and part-time faculty.
The results, as I have said, have not been pretty. For example, I sit on a committee that is charged with re-writing the rules for tenure and promotion in my college. The new rules (enacted over my strenuous objections) specify that a new professor must seek federal funding for his research. Private funding is neither encouraged nor appreciated to the degree that money from NSF, NIH, DoD, or DoE is. High productivity in research (read: lots of research funding) is the only thing that will count in promotion and tenure decisions; teaching need only be "adequate." (And I assure you, the standards of adequacy are very low.)