Chemical and Engineering News publishes an annual survey of chemical employment. Last year, 55.8% of all chemists were emplyed in manufacturing, 23.9% in academia, and 20.4% in neither. Of the last category, 7.4% worked in government. Of the 23.9% who work in academia, 20.2% work in Universities, four year colleges and medical schools. I'd estimate about a quarter of these work in four year colleges, which usually don't receive significant research funding. Even in research universities, usually about one third do not have federal funding. So we have about 1 chemist in 10 receiving federal funding in an academic job, and 7.5% working directly for government.
Roughly 50 percent of grants goes straight to the university as 'overhead'. Professors salaries are 'overhead'. Salaries are part of overhead.
Nonsense. Salaries are not part of overhead. Salaries are direct costs.
http://departments.oxy.edu/urc/faculty/allowable_costs.htm
In a public university, the only people receiving salaries as part of direct costs are those of us on 9 month contracts, where we can draw up to 3 months summer salary from grants. People on 12 month contracts (e.g. ag. schools) don't get any salary from the feds.
This amounts to another sub-fraction of the 10%. So much for your 'Scientists are overwhelmingly paid by government grants, not student tuition money.'.
Telling untruths out of negligence or wanton disregard for the truth is lying.
Nonsense. Salaries are not part of overhead. Salaries are direct costs.
We already know from overwhelming anecdotal evidence that the anti-Evolutionaries didn't pay much attention in science class; what makes you think they were any more scholarly in accounting?
"In a public university, the only people receiving salaries as part of direct costs are those of us on 9 month contracts, where we can draw up to 3 months summer salary from grants. People on 12 month contracts (e.g. ag. schools) don't get any salary from the feds.
This amounts to another sub-fraction of the 10%. So much for your 'Scientists are overwhelmingly paid by government grants, not student tuition money.'.
Telling untruths out of negligence or wanton disregard for the truth is lying."
I was going to wade in on this one, but since you were there, I decided to let you answer. You did a great job, but........
Government is much more pervasive than direct salaries. A lot of that overhead is recycled down to Departments in the form of equipment and small grants to support this and that. But the worst part, is the peer review of grants that forces scientists into research areas that are "approved" by the NSF, NIH, DOE, EPA, etc. That effect is quite serious, IMHO. Government Scientist is an oxymoron, and especially in the Life Sciences, government scientists are typically an inferior lot. So we have this inferior lot leading around the best brains in the business. It's not awful, but our progress could have been much greater if they would get out of the way.
I am a microbiologist and have been in the middle of this - how do you fit?
"Telling untruths out of negligence or wanton disregard for the truth is lying."
Your references, however, and discussion, refer to everybody; I'm referring to those folks who are tenured and control the tenure process. I'm referring to those folks who run the journals.
I'm not a liar. But, you have posted a source. I'll go find mine.