1. What is a hedge fund and why aren’t they in jail?

2. How can the busiest travel day of the year be Labor Day, Memorial Day, July 4, and also the day before Thanksgiving?

3. How does the AAA know that 57 million cars will be on the road, 6 percent more than last year?

4. Has any woman ever become “a new you by Christmas,” lost 30 pounds in 30 days, or cleaned up household clutter, on the basis of magazine advice?

5. Why do people give money to Harvard when it has $35-billion in the bank? Same for lesser endowed but still very rich Yale, Stanford, U. of Texas, etc.

6. Why don’t the feds deny money to any university whose investment income exceeds its operating costs?

7. Is Bill Gates’s philanthropy sufficient penance for inflicting the Microsoft operating system on a trusting public?

8. Why do economists say consumer spending is the key to prosperity, and also warn ...

What happened to the enthusiasm for medical research that inspired Congress to heap rising billions upon the National Institutes of Health over many decades? Though multibillions are still forthcoming for NIH, making it by far the world’s richest biomedical enterprise, growth is gone, creating awful strains for individuals and research institutions. Even with all that money, financial insufficiency roils the system because in addition to staking scores of thousands of full-fledged researchers, NIH supports thousands of trainees, many of whom aspire to become grantees.

In step with this dynamic, Congress regularly raised the NIH budget, from $3.4-billion in 1980 to $13.6-billion in 1998. Then, in a burst of biomedical largess, Congress resolved to double the budget in five years — and did so, despite resistance from the White House. By 2003, the NIH budget topped out at $27.5-billion...

For recreational reading, turn to the help-wanted ads for academic executives—the presidents, provosts, deans and others who manage higher education.

Visionaries are in demand, particularly those with leadership qualities essential for implementing a strategic vision. Innovativeness wins points. Promoters of interdisciplinarity are much sought after, as are reshapers of the traditional paradigm, especially in the context of globalization and networking. A record of cross-institutional bridge building is a plus. Exceptional scholarly attainment is expected. Skill at crisis management is fast coming up among the criteria for senior posts. Commitment to excellence, diversity and shared governance is essential. Accomplishment in external fund raising, sometimes referred to as resource development, is a must, along with a willingness to confront challenge creatively while building...

Is there a feasible way out of the grant drought that currently afflicts the scientific enterprise, particularly in the health-related sciences? Sorry. There isn’t. Some ameliorative steps might be taken, but don’t forget the word “feasible.”

Insufficiency is built into the system, as was sagely noted nearly half a century ago by a wise man of science, I.I. Rabi, Nobel laureate in physics and longtime White House science adviser:

“There is something like a Parkinson’s Law that scientific activity will grow to meet any set budget and find it grossly inadequate,” Rabi said in a talk to the Israel Institute of Technology in 1963. “It is in the very nature of science that new discoveries open new fields of further activity. It is like climbing a mountain peak and seeing new landscapes not visible in the valley.”

In that early period of the American scientific buildup, Rabi addressed on...

Prohibit the words “accountability” and “transparency” in the oratory of academic governance and university chieftains might be left speechless.

Let it all hang out, openness and candor, everything above board — these are dominant themes on higher-ed rostrums. In these cynical times, universities, along with other institutions, are regarded with suspicion. In response come vows of accountability and transparency (A&T, from here on). There’s even an association to promote academic A&T, the Voluntary System of Accountability, sponsored by the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges, and “the public higher education community.” The stated aim is “to improve public understanding of how public colleges and universities operate,” with the focus on costs, programs, student opinions, and academic outcomes...

Why are so many science jobs and student slots in the U.S. filled by foreigners? For the same reason jobs in lettuce fields and apple orchards are filled by foreigners. Many qualified Americans shun science because, far more than the drum beaters for research let on, science can be a risky, unrewarding career choice.

When it comes to agricultural picking and stooping, our foreign reliance is easily understood even without a rudimentary grasp of economics: The pay and working conditions are so miserable that only impoverished foreigners see the chance of a step up. That’s clear. The reliance on foreigners to fill U.S. science classrooms and staff labs and science and engineering faculties is similarly clear, though a mini-industry thrives on pondering and lamenting the deficit of scientific Americans. Prophecies of national woes from an alleged though non-existent scientist shortage ...

NIH is again handwringing that for lack of money it shortchanges young scientists in favor of well-established researchers and tends to caution and conservatism in selecting research projects. Ho-hum. All true. It’s a chronic condition in the elephantine bureaucracy that handles the world’s biggest wad of biomedical research money.

The same lamentations were voiced prior to Congress putting the NIH budget on a fast track to doubling, to $27 billion, between 1998 and 2003. As the budget swelled, the Willie Sutton imperative quickly produced a near-doubling of grant applications. Then Congress throttled back on the money, parceling out only smallish increases, or none at all, leaving today’s purchasing power at NIH down about 8 percent below the 2004 level. As a result, the success rate for applicants has dropped from one in three in 2001 to one in five at present, according to a report...

Now a word on behalf of one of the most despicable characters on the public stage, Senator Larry E. Craig. Of Minnesota airport men’s room renown, the Idaho Republican provides a good starting point for wondering when will this country grow up about sex.

In the fall, the previously obscure senator became a national joke after he pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct charges arising from a gay-sex sting operation in the aforementioned restroom. As a loud opponent of gay rights, gay marriage, and civil unions, Craig radiated hypocrisy, and soon enough, a posse was in joyous pursuit, egged on by late-night TV wits and editorial cartoonists. His resignation was widely demanded. President Bush indicated that he would not mourn Craig’s departure. But Craig hung on. Now, after fading from public notice for a time, the Idaho Republican has been hauled back into the news by new allegations of...

My suspicion of academic rankings was long ago solidified by a letter from U.S. News & World Report that addressed me as an engineering educator and asked me to rank schools of engineering. As a repeat student in remedial trigonometry during far-gone undergraduate days, I was neither interested in nor capable of engineering studies. I wouldn’t know a good engineering department from a bad school for plumbers’ assistants. Obviously a mixup — request ignored. But I’ve always wondered whether I could have skewed the tables — even a little bit — with my ignorance-based rankings. No way of knowing. But I’ve also wondered why anyone should have confidence in the rankings of organizations as complex, diverse, and evolving as institutions of higher education, even assuming high-minded expertise.

This old and well-worked-over question arises anew because of the latest word on the purported...

The adulation of peer review in the popular press is one of the great wonders in relations between science and the rest of the world.

For attesting to the credibility of a scientific report, news accounts routinely note whether or not publication has occurred in a peer-reviewed journal. If it has, the legitimacy rating goes up; if it hasn’t, a presumption of doubt is overtly or subtly conveyed. The actual workings of peer review are so little known to the public that a street-corner survey would probably turn up hunches that it has something to do with Coast Guard inspection of waterfront facilities. Within science, the common defense of peer review echoes Churchill’s accolade to democracy: the worst possible system, except for all others. Basically, it consists of pre-publication screening of reports by presumed experts in the subject matter. Their candor is supposedly assured by a ...