[idm]

It's a fact that wealthy donors support specific research that interests them.

On the one hand, hasn't research always been funded like this? Wealthy patrons have always supported work that somehow gratified them. And history is replete with despicable personalities who have nevertheless financed good science.

On the other hand, when the patron's interests turn out to be questionable, the research supported by those interests can be examined. It's okay to give it a second thought in light of new information about the patron.

I happen to think this article raises valid questions. For example, I have questions about the idea of buying a visiting fellowship. I have questions about the mechanisms by which faculty become oddly encumbered by donations.