May 1, 2025 · 36 min · 11 segments
In the latest episode, IMD President David Bach explains the vital importance of the partnership between the US government and the elite research universities, what we can learn from the vibrancy of…
David BachGuest
Felix ZeltnerHost
Well, I completely understand why they would make that argument, but they're mistaken now.
I think one of the mistakes that leaders in elite universities in particular have made is to not explain more broadly to the public all the great work that they do, that even though they're a highly selective institution, you take a place like Harvard or Yale or Stanford, they admit three, three and a half percent of the undergraduates who apply there, they're incredibly selective institutions.
And yet the research that happens there the contribution to policy debates, the cultural heritage that gets preserved.
And, you know, these institutions, I think they all recognize they could have done a better job explaining that more emphatically.
One of the things that impresses me about what Harvard is doing right now is they're not just explaining why they're resisting the Trump administration, they're also highlighting how the work that happens at a place like Harvard, work that happens with federal funding, actually benefits the public at large.
So, basically, to answer your question, you know, for several decades, there's been a close partnership between the US government and these elite research universities, where the US government has underwritten or collaborated with on fundamental research in particular.
Research that companies wouldn't fund and that is very expensive and it would be very difficult for these universities to fund in their own right.
Certainly they couldn't fund it out of tuition and not every donor is going to fund fundamental research.
These universities have built laboratories, have hired faculty, have built whole programs around this research funding.
And look, I think if the US wants to have a conversation about the model of research funding at universities, let's have that conversation.
I would argue that leveraging top research universities is a more effective way of doing that research than, say, government-owned laboratories.
The funds are being canceled one day to the next over something, you know, anti-Semitism that is a really, really important concern, but not related to, you know, foundational research on the next generation of antibiotics or research on the origins of the universe, right? These things are not linked.
It's being used to pressure these universities And in the process, this really important work stops.
And, you know, I've spoken to colleagues who have described situations where people are literally walking away from Petri dishes.
There are ongoing experiments that can't come to a conclusion because, you know, funding has disappeared and labs have been shut down.
Well, I completely understand why they would make that argument, but they're mistaken now.
I think one of the mistakes that leaders in elite universities in particular have made is to not explain more broadly to the public all the great work that they do, that even though they're a highly selective institution, you take a place like Harvard or Yale or Stanford, they admit three, three and a half percent of the undergraduates who apply there, they're incredibly selective institutions.
And yet the research that happens there the contribution to policy debates, the cultural heritage that gets preserved.
And, you know, these institutions, I think they all recognize they could have done a better job explaining that more emphatically.
One of the things that impresses me about what Harvard is doing right now is they're not just explaining why they're resisting the Trump administration, they're also highlighting how the work that happens at a place like Harvard, work that happens with federal funding, actually benefits the public at large.
So, basically, to answer your question, you know, for several decades, there's been a close partnership between the US government and these elite research universities, where the US government has underwritten or collaborated with on fundamental research in particular.
Research that companies wouldn't fund and that is very expensive and it would be very difficult for these universities to fund in their own right.
Certainly they couldn't fund it out of tuition and not every donor is going to fund fundamental research.
These universities have built laboratories, have hired faculty, have built whole programs around this research funding.
And look, I think if the US wants to have a conversation about the model of research funding at universities, let's have that conversation.
I would argue that leveraging top research universities is a more effective way of doing that research than, say, government-owned laboratories.
The funds are being canceled one day to the next over something, you know, anti-Semitism that is a really, really important concern, but not related to, you know, foundational research on the next generation of antibiotics or research on the origins of the universe, right? These things are not linked.
It's being used to pressure these universities And in the process, this really important work stops.
And, you know, I've spoken to colleagues who have described situations where people are literally walking away from Petri dishes.
There are ongoing experiments that can't come to a conclusion because, you know, funding has disappeared and labs have been shut down.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.
