When i said MJF's research group was private, many of you must have said to yourselves "of course it's private, there is no government money going into his organization! Well the difference is that it it a privately funded "not-for-profit" organization,which makes a big difference because at the end of the day. MJF doesn't have to show his "shareholders" (read- you the people who gave money in the expectation that collectively, your gifts will mean something and get somewhere") how much the dividends will be from development of any new "products". In other words, unlike a CEO of a fortune 500 pharmaceutical company, MJF doesn't have to answer to anybody (except maybe his wife and kids, and i don't mean that snidely in any way) why his enterprise hasn't done anything to get significantly closer to OUR goal in any particular year.
In big pharma, the top managers have discreet goals every year, say add another "branded property" to fill in a "hole" created by the "income rupture" of a major product coming off patent in an area that they have defined as their "core business structure" Usually the CEO assembles the best people in the field of interest ; people who can lead up teams of expertise in the area, people known to produce results, but generally at a high cost. When these people come "onboard" they negotiate their salaries and other details of autonomy in staff choice and the necessary budgetary resources that they believe they will need to carry out the task set before them. They usually have 5 years to make good on their contract, or out the door they go, usually with a "tarnished reputation". The CEO then has the agonizing decision of dropping the program, or throwing more resources into it based on how far the top research team tell him they have come at reaching a reasonable target in a reasonable time.
MJF doesn't have to be put under the microscope, due to obvious "should have dones", as retrospect becomes clearer. Nor does he have to worry about losing his job, hell it's his money, he can spend it any way he wants to; he is not constrained by the normal business rules of "for profit "companies. It is therefore "normal", that research outfits of the "private, not for profit" nature attract only researchers who are either well heeled (scientific pedigree), or otherwise well known for some piece of research that they have done in the past, have made a name for themselves as "expert" in the area of research tend to bring in their cronies, and rest on their laurels. This allows the directorand CEO to say "see, we've brought in some big guns", but in reality, what they get "stuck with" are usually bright people with a good name , but are near the end of their productive scientific idea generating careers, who really don't need the high pressure of "getting it right" research, and so the institution suffers from their lacklustre performances. The people that they hire are only their to further their careers by publishing papers on PD research whether it be on the subject but completely useless to the DD community who are in bad shape. These publications now are used to get into a "serious" well payed job because the applicants have demonstrated that they understand modern biochemical techniques. So these kinds of institutions are much like the post-doc system, yet another "training ground" for the better scientists who will jump ship for a better job anyday.
One final word on researcher ability and loyalty. First researcher ability; "one only rises to the top of their level of inability" You can't make people shine and be charged up every day, if they don't have the training to do their jobs with confidence and determination to succeed. Now loyalty. An employer can start a new researcher at a certain level of compensation, but if, after a few years, they are not brought well up into a good pay rate (and they well deserve it) to show them that management is happy with their performance, then, they won't get loyalty. Loyalty is one of those indescribable factors in the successful employee-employer relationships. It is fragile and very easily broken by even an unseen micro-time-scale event of one big shot trying to lord over an underling. IT makes all the difference whether the researcher lives, breathes, eats, etc., always thinking about their research and ways of seeing a project to an end. Invention occurs because the inventor has the NEED to invent. Break that fragile gossamer thread, and you have thrown away a loyal, productive employee. People are the most important factor in any research endeavor; they literally make or break research efforts. Happy, well paid people, getting along well, is the secret to any research success. I suspect that there are some problems with motivation and retention of focussed , dedicated top researchers in the MJF PD organization (AND OTHER AS WELL). Let's hope i'm wrong, and just an ignorant wind bucket