[kaffee]

>> Not all of science is interesting to the private sector.

> My research area is famously hard to fund even within academia, so I substantially changed the way that I frame my research and the type of work I was proposing.

I don't see the private sector funding ethnomusicology, philosophy, ecology, social history, ...

[InefficientRed]

> I don't see the private sector funding ethnomusicology, philosophy, ecology, social history, ...

sseagull mentioned NSF, NIH and DOE. None of those funds ethnomusicology, philosophy, or social history.

[sseagull]

You left out ecology (again, which wouldn't be funded by business and I would consider important for society).

The NSF also gets somewhat close to the others via Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences, which includes anthropology/archaeology and linguistics.

[InefficientRed]

I am highly suspicious of the need for post-doctoral training in philosophy, ecology, or social history and even more skeptical of the ethics of using tax payer's money to fund those positions.

Ecology is a probably a field where the world would be better off if we re-appropriated post-doc funding to USFS and hired people with bs or even no degrees to do important work on the ground.