There's a pervasive bias in academia against scientists who work in industry. It is often said that such individuals aren’t "real scientists." The less charitable describe them as having gone over to the so-called dark side. For at least two reasons, this is a shameful and hypocritical way to characterize industry.
Academia is in meltdown. A new Gallup survey shows that only 48% of U.S. adults have a "great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in academia. That's down from 57% in 2015. And it's not just due to partisanship. Maybe this wouldn't happen if academics were held accountable for their behavior.
Some scientific journals are publishing articles by anti-technology activists without disclosing their blatant financial conflicts of interest. Despite all the pleas for transparency, the problem is getting worse.
Enrollment in the humanities is collapsing. Why? Probably because (1) there's a widespread belief that humanities degrees should be avoided; (2) the humanities generate too much nonsensical research; and (3) the humanities, and academia in general, are politically biased.
Though widely touted, there's no such thing as "free speech" in academia. Instead, there are two sets of standards: One for a largely far-left-wing, postmodernist type who reject science and basic decency; and a second for everybody else.
One of the many problems with academia is that it allows nutcases to flourish.
There's a camp that says innovation in drug development comes solely from academia and government labs. Another says the pharmaceutical industry invents drugs, without academic involvement. Both camps are wrong. Usually, both academia and industry contribute to drug discovery. An example is the long, grueling battle against hepatitis C.