In the category of "academics will do anything if you fund it":

The initial round of grants from the institute will support the work of physicists at Harvard, Yale, Stanford, and other leading scientific institutions who are interested in examining questions such as whether the fundamental laws of nature are specially designed to allow life and whether there are truths about the universe that physics is inherently incapable of proving. Although start-up funds for the institute were provided by the John Templeton Foundation in the form of a $6.2 million grant, the institute makes its funding decisions independently of the foundation and is run by two well-respected researchers.

Still, while some scientists welcomed the institute as a way to fund research at the center of modern physics, critics voiced concern that its work would be used to blur the line between science and religion. "I think that bringing science and religion together is not a good thing," said Sean Carroll, a theoretical physicist at the University of Chicago. "It's not that different from the Vietnam War, when people wondered whether to take money from the Defense Department for their research, even if their research had no conceivable military application."

Conservate religious foundation seeds "independent" research institute that enlists professors from high-profile academic institutions to find god in our DNA. This is how evolution becomes "debatable."

Selfish Giving dissects an article at PRwatch.org about corporate giving. It was written by Inger Stoller, a professor at the University of Illinois. SG, in one of his more snide moments:

Inger suggests that if companies really want to help, they "should pay their fair share of taxes.  Then education, health care, research and other priorities could receive greater funding, with no strings attached."  Right.  Given the choice between waiting for Uncle Sam to mail me my no-strings-attached check or cause markeing my way through Corporate America, I'll take the risk of one day having to admit that I only have myself to blame.

Memo to SG: If corporations paid their fair share of taxes we'd have a stronger revenue base with which to address some of society's more intractable problems, public education and health care being two relatively obvious examples. That's not to say government is the answer to all of our problems, but I think government is more trustworthy to come up with objective solutions to our major societal challenges than some collection of Fortune 500 companies. You think Big Pharma's going to participate in forming a strategy for health care that reduces our reliance on prescription drugs?

I think we should rely very little on corporations to fix society's problems. On a very limited basis, for sure, corporations may contribute to the greater good. But there's an inherent conflict of interest in corporate philanthropy; companies are buying something with their contributions. Most often it's community goodwill; customers want to feel good about where they're spending their money [in addition to getting the lowest price], and companies contribute to charity to raise their community profiles.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing. I think companies ought to be able to spend money just about any way they'd like. I just don't think, on the contributions side, the tax break comes much into play. Look at most Fortune 500 companies that have active corporate giving programs or foundations and I think you'll find those functions closely aligned with marketing and advertising. As long as that's the case, don't expect too much.