I totally sympathize with your plight, it's a sorry state of affairs. I'd love to know, what's your take on "crowdfunding" type initiatives, such as http://www.experiment.com and http://www.petridish.org ?
I don't think crowdfunding will work for science. Science is the turtle in the race. Long, slow and steady is how every single breakthrough has occurred, because it requires setting foundations that take decades. Crowdfunding is the most unstable funding source, and thus involves a level of uncertainty that no professional could live with on a long term basis. It's great for small, self contained projects with a clear goal. Not for quests into the unknown.
Furthermore, the average person has no understanding of the history, practice, and effects of scientific research. They don't realize that the unbelievable technologies we enjoy today are a result of very concerted efforts throughout history to advance the state of our understanding. The iPhone is a result of the accumulation of every discovery made by mankind since the inception of our species. This is not what the average person thinks when they hold an iPhone. As such, I believe crowdfunding will be for a very small niche of like minded people. That does not compare to the resources available through taxation.
From the article:
“A Fred Sanger would not survive today’s world of science. With continuous reporting and appraisals, some committee would note that he published little of import between insulin in 1952 and his first paper on RNA sequencing in 1967 with another long gap until DNA sequencing in 1977. He would be labelled as unproductive, and his modest personal support would be denied. We no longer have a culture that allows individuals to embark on long-term—and what would be considered today extremely risky—projects.”
From Peter Higgs [1]:
"The emeritus professor ... published fewer than 10 papers after his groundbreaking work, which identified the mechanism by which subatomic material acquires mass, was published in 1964.
Higgs, 84, said he would almost certainly have been sacked had he not been nominated for the Nobel in 1980.
Edinburgh University's authorities then took the view, he later learned, that he "might get a Nobel prize – and if he doesn't we can always get rid of him".
Higgs said he became "an embarrassment to the department when they did research assessment exercises". A message would go around the department saying: "Please give a list of your recent publications." Higgs said: "I would send back a statement: 'None.' "
While I agree with your overall analysis of the issues facing science, I disagree that 'the average person' is to blame. I think the professors / administrators / i.e. the "scientists" in academia themselves are responsible for the current state of things. The public believes scientists collaborate for best results, but as we all know this is in fact the opposite of what's happening: All results are hidden until publication. Methods and data intentionally difficult to get / obscured due to a desire to maintain edge. P-value hacking and exaggeration accepted practices due to desire to publish "high impact" research and get more grants and tenure.
