Firstly, coming from a country where the wealth distribution is as distorted as in the US (1% of the population owns 33% of net worth but about 12% of the population live below the poverty line; which is the most unequal wealth distribution in any Western democracy), it is quite ironic that you point your finger at others, even if their wealth distribution is much more skewed (and you can lump all monarchies and dictatorships into that group). Without being a socialist, you could easily criticize the wealth distribution, and “control of wealth and power” in the US as well. Why do you feel you have to single out Saudi Arabia?

Secondly, what is the difference of someone being born into a very wealthy US family, who didn’t have to earn his/her money and is able to easily donate $10 or $20 million for a research institute and someone being born into the Saudi royal family doing the same?

And lastly, it’s obviously easy as you do from far away – have you ever been in the region? – to criticize the form of government in Saudi Arabia and “who controls the wealth and power” and that “we can question whether they should be getting so much of their country’s ongoing natural resources income.” But it’s much harder to come up with a better solution that has a realistic chance of working. That Western-style democracies don’t seem to work – and can’t be externally imposed – in the Middle East is amply demonstrated by Saudi Arabia’s neighbouring countries. I would be curious to know what your solution would be?

Response: (1) Because it’s worse. And hey, we criticize various entities here (including the U.S.), not just Saudi Arabia. (2) Because the wealthy person’s family isn’t holding onto political power using a threat of physical force. (3) Great question! Whoever can answer it deserves a Nobel Peace Prize. ;^) —C

Sure, we’d rather the new institute was set up under a different social regime, but funding science and innovation is historically a good way to help social changes along.

Response: Hi Ben. I agree with you on inherited wealth. It can do great things. In this case, though, the wealth of the Saudi monarchy is not just inherited, and we can question whether they should be getting so much of their country’s ongoing natural resources income. Also, in this case, the origin of the money does taint its use; for example, it affects whether women will be allowed to join the main research team. Thanks for commenting! –C

When nothing is expected or needed, nothing is done.

http://www.kfupm.edu.sa/kfupm/about/about.asp

His position was terminated in favor of a Saudi national who had just finished a PhD at some equally prestigious US graduate program. The Saudis definitely have some domestic scientific talent, and have had little trouble hiring foreign researchers either. One wonders where this idea that a dearth of talen would pose a problem for the Saudis comes from?

Incidentally, his wife, who was working on a PhD in Ancient Near East Studies at Brandeis, chafed at the Saudi restrictions on women, but dealt with it by spending most of her time on archeolgical digs in the Mediterranean.

Response to Makiko: The reason that it matters who provides the funding for a nanotech institute is the same reason that it matters who owns and controls the oil wealth of Saudi Arabia. When a research institute is named after the English Queen, or a King of Sweden presents a prize, it’s symbolic, not because those individuals have extreme power or control over their country’s natural resources. –Christine