Howard Hughes: Patron Of Science?

Medical Research Institute Is America's Second Largest Charity

(CBS)  It's very likely that Hughes didn't mean for all of this to happen. And that's where our science story gets juicy.

"He was a playboy, he was a world-class pilot. He dated Bette Davis, Katherine Hepburn, Ginger Rogers, Ava Gardner, Rita Hayworth, in the same week," says author Richard Hack, who has written two biographies of Hughes.

Hollywood was his playground, but Hughes came to fame as a record-setting pilot, and it was his Hughes Aircraft Company that turned him into a billionaire. His most famous plane, the "Spruce Goose," was a giant wooden seaplane that flew just once, with Hughes at the controls. Despite that flop, Hughes Aircraft still became one of America's biggest defense contractors.

"The company originally started to make airplanes and then it maneuvered itself into guidance systems. So it was a very important element of the Air Force," says Hack.

But the world's richest man wasn't your average government contractor. He was combative and he bullied Pentagon officials. A newsreel from 1947 showed him lambasting a U.S. senator who had the audacity to challenge him.

By 1953, the temperamental Hughes had begun to withdraw from public view. His own executives at Hughes Aircraft often couldn't reach him, and he cut off contact with the Air Force.

At some point the Air Force decided that Hughes was a liability to his own company, and delivered an ultimatum. "It was at the Beverly Hills Hotel and the Secretary of the Air Force came and demanded to see Howard Hughes, who kept him waiting for an hour and a half," says Hack. "The secretary of the Air Force came in and said, ‘You either put control of this company under somebody that I am going to tell you to hire, or we are removing every single contract from Hughes Aircraft.’ Gave 'em 90 days.”

What happened next? In exactly 90 days, Hughes created the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, says Hack. "This was one wily move. By giving the new Institute 100 percent ownership of Hughes Aircraft, Hughes got out from under the Air Force ultimatum and built a giant tax shelter for the company's profits."

Because it was a medical institute, it was all tax-free. It was a charity. Even though they did no research. Plus, there were no personnel, and the only trustee was Howard Hughes, says Hack.

When the IRS challenged the institute, it did begin to fund some research, but for many years, as Hughes retreated further into isolation and illness, more money went to him than to science.

"He did black out the windows. He did live by himself. He didn't even walk to the bathroom, he was carried to the bathroom from bed," says Hack. "He didn't dress, let alone bathe. The fact is the man had enough money that if he didn't want to get up out of bed, he didn't. And in fact, he didn't."

Hughes died without a will in 1976, and the Institute was mired in years of litigation. Finally, in 1984, a court appointed new trustees, and they promptly sold Hughes Aircraft to General Motors for $5 billion. Suddenly, an institute created basically as a sham became the richest charity America had ever seen.

[npr_opoganda]

"typically used for building" NO. It is used for power acquisition. Harvard FAILS at following the spirit of those that donate. In light of the overwhelming need for wells in Africa, Harvard withholds, Harvard simply points the finger at others (the right). Harvard is an infestation of one point of view. Look at the Demography of the professors. Harvard is "arguably" the best University because it pays for the prestige, not for results. Founded as a Divinity School, Harvard now prides itself on developing the best ways to abort life and turn it into a product. Walking across the green (the mud) shows that they care very little for appearances, and looking at the broken sidewalks is more proof that they expect Cambridge to pay out, not them

[rational_1]

Harvard doesn''''t need it - it has 30 billion, but prefers to use it''''s wealth as political leverage as opposed to "pure" research. Why not paint the whole canvas? Why not disparage Harvard with equal enthusiasm as you rank on NIH?
Posted by NPR_OPOGANDA at 10:05 AM : Jun 09, 2008

University endowments are typically used for things such as buildings (infrastructure) and retention/recruitment packages for faculty, rather than yearly research costs. NIH isn''t going to pony up $100 million for a new biology building. The biomedical researchers are basically self-employed in a sense and are expected to compete for their research dollars at NIH (and other funding agencies) rather than expecting the universities to give it to them from their endowments. I think this is appropriate since all grant applications to NIH or NSF (for example) undergo rigorous peer-review, ensuring only the best proposals get funded (~10-15% these days). This wouldn''t happen if universities gave professors access to their endowments. So yes, Harvard is obscenely wealthy... but it also has a pretty good track record of accomplishment and is arguably the best university in the world.

[beehive21-2009]

Howard was an amazing pioneer, everyone loved Howard, and always will. He picked the Russians Atomic bomb off the ocean floor, no one else came close. He''s the only man ever licensed via the telephone , In Gaming. In the end, poor Howard was turned into a Zombie via drugs.

[npr_opoganda]

Secondly, and lastly, at the conclusion of the story there is a blurb about HHMI giving grant money to research how "Climate Change" affects Malarial and Choleral conditions worldwide. How politically and emotionally apropos! I would suggest that HHMI also fund research to FINALLY analyze the research that went into the manifesto "Silent Spring", and let the outcome speak for itself. We all should be aware that 6,000 children die of Malaria every day in Africa. We should also be aware that DDT and many of it''s cousins can stop these deaths. We have an immediate solution; but what we need now is the courage to truly and unemotionally evaluate it''s use and decide honestly whether it is better to let children die or to rely on the lack of proven science in the benchmark "Silent Spring". HHMI is political first, scientific, second; and nothing will change my opinion of that until it balances it''s research, just like 60 minutes should balance it''s rhetoric, if it is truly non-biased.

[npr_opoganda]

This story is unbalance rhetoric, creating a demon out of the NIH, but avoiding other enterprises that could easily fund research with ever more potency than HHMI. I speak specifically of Harvard''s endowment, which exceeds 30 Billion (as compared too HHMI''s 11 Billion). One of the researchers taking grants from HHMI works at Harvard, no? Why isn''t Harvard at the forefront? (To answer, because despite it''s vast wealth, it wants more and is willing to accept it from the NIH). Harvard doesn''t need it - it has 30 billion, but prefers to use it''s wealth as political leverage as opposed to "pure" research. Why not paint the whole canvas? Why not disparage Harvard with equal enthusiasm as you rank on NIH?