" A small minority of US scientists are paid on grants"
Funny, I didn't cite my source, but then, neither did you. I suppose the Chronicle of Higher Ed could be researched.
Roughly 8/10ths of all research dollars come straight from the feds. Roughly 50 percent of grants goes straight to the university as 'overhead'. Professors salaries are 'overhead'. Salaries are part of overhead.
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.