Not terribly surprised overall. While Brookings often gets painted as left-leaning, they argue (with some basis) that they are not particularly ideological, but in the absence of ideology, it is pretty easy to just fall into influence peddling.
Personally, for think tanks, I am a CSIS and Hudson fan. Paying more attention to German Mashall Fund of the US since they have hired a PRC analyst I started following at CSIS.
Every serious scientific, engineering, or other academic paper includes a short bio of the authors (as we also find with USNI article) so that the readers may better judge the credibility of the paper’s conclusions. I propose that every position paper delivered by a think tank include a concise list of the actual top 60-70% (by dollars) funders of the organization. That would allow the rest of us to follow the money.
This is why the brass should never be put on a pedestal. This is also why think tanks should have a moral responsibility to disclose where the money is coming from.
Not terribly surprised overall. While Brookings often gets painted as left-leaning, they argue (with some basis) that they are not particularly ideological, but in the absence of ideology, it is pretty easy to just fall into influence peddling.
Personally, for think tanks, I am a CSIS and Hudson fan. Paying more attention to German Mashall Fund of the US since they have hired a PRC analyst I started following at CSIS.
Every serious scientific, engineering, or other academic paper includes a short bio of the authors (as we also find with USNI article) so that the readers may better judge the credibility of the paper’s conclusions. I propose that every position paper delivered by a think tank include a concise list of the actual top 60-70% (by dollars) funders of the organization. That would allow the rest of us to follow the money.
This is why the brass should never be put on a pedestal. This is also why think tanks should have a moral responsibility to disclose where the money is coming from.