The papers collected in this special issue respond to questions that have long been in the back of our minds as we have toiled over the funding applications that have enabled us to pursue our work: what is the relationship between architectural research and the various public and private bodies that fund it, be they foundations, governmental organisations or private companies? And how do these sources of funding shape the outcomes of that research? Despite the way in which funding necessarily underpins research in our discipline — even the existence of universities attests to a structure of funding for research — it has received relatively little explicit or conscious scrutiny. As we were in the first stages of developing the papers with our authors, and during the final stages of production, two events occurred which brought our topic into sharp relief, both involving the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. In 2017, a lively debate played out in the letter pages of the London Review of Books, when Hilary Rose, repeating the claims of anthropologist Chris Knight, accused linguist Noam Chomsky of having been influenced by military funding at MIT. A raft of letters followed, including a memorably indignant rejoinder from Chomsky himself in which he said: ‘There is much more to say about [Chris] Knight’s quite astonishing [accusation] and, more important, about the idea that scientific work is necessarily influenced by its source of funding (corporate, military, whatever).’ Then, in September 2019, Ronan Farrow, writing for The New Yorker, alleged that the MIT Media Lab had sought to conceal millions of dollars of donations stewarded by the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein. After the allegations were published, Media Lab director Joi Ito resigned, and the MIT president, L. Rafael Reif, announced an investigation into the claims. These events showed that funding, and the way it makes research possible, matters, but in ways that are not clear cut. On the one hand, Chomsky argues that he was able to uphold the principles of intellectual and political autonomy, even while working for an institution that developed into an elite research university thanks to extensive funding from the US military. On the other hand, the controversy over Epstein’s MIT donations implicitly accepts that a complete separation between funding and academic agendas is impossible: funding always comes from particular places, organisations and individuals with distinct ideologies, motivations, ethics, and morals. As Hilary Rose bluntly put it in her rejoinder to Chomsky, ‘To the funder there is no disinterested knowledge.’ The issues raised by the events surrounding Chomsky and Epstein need to be seen beyond their newsworthiness. They remind us of the complex ways in which institutions respond structurally to the funding they receive. In this way, our use of the word ‘foundation’ in the title of the special issue is Charles Rice

中文翻译：

---

引言：建筑研究的基础

本期特刊中收集的论文回答了长期以来在我们脑海中浮现的问题，因为我们一直在努力解决使我们能够开展工作的资金申请：建筑研究与各种公共和私人之间的关系是什么？资助它的机构，是基金会、政府组织还是私营公司？这些资金来源如何影响该研究的结果？尽管资助必然是我们学科研究的基础——甚至大学的存在也证明了研究资助的结构——但它很少受到明确或有意识的审查。由于我们正处于与作者一起开发论文的第一阶段，以及在制作的最后阶段，发生了两件事，使我们的话题变得尖锐起来，都涉及麻省理工学院。2017 年，《伦敦书评》的书信页面上展开了一场激烈的辩论，当时希拉里·罗斯重复人类学家克里斯·奈特的说法，指责语言学家诺姆·乔姆斯基受到麻省理工学院军事资助的影响。随之而来的是大量的信件，其中包括乔姆斯基本人令人难忘的愤慨反驳，他说：“关于[克里斯]奈特令人震惊的[指控]，还有更多要说的，更重要的是，关于科学工作必然受到影响的想法根据其资金来源（公司、军事等）。然后，在 2019 年 9 月，罗南法罗为《纽约客》撰稿，指控麻省理工学院媒体实验室试图隐瞒由名誉扫地的金融家杰弗里·爱泼斯坦管理的数百万美元的捐款。指控公布后，媒体实验室主任 Joi Ito 辞职，麻省理工学院校长 L. Rafael Reif 宣布对这些指控展开调查。这些事件表明，资金及其使研究成为可能的方式很重要，但其方式尚不明确。一方面，乔姆斯基认为，他能够坚持知识和政治自治的原则，即使在为一所由于美国军方提供的大量资金而发展成为一所精英研究型大学的机构工作时也是如此。另一方面，关于爱泼斯坦在麻省理工学院捐赠的争议隐含地接受了资金和学术议程之间不可能完全分离的观点：资金总是来自具有不同意识形态、动机、伦理和道德的特定地方、组织和个人。正如希拉里罗斯在她对乔姆斯基的反驳中直言不讳的那样，“对于资助者来说，没有无私的知识。” 围绕乔姆斯基和爱泼斯坦的事件引发的问题需要超越其新闻价值。它们提醒我们机构对其收到的资金做出结构性反应的复杂方式。这样，我们在特刊标题中使用的“基础”一词就是查尔斯·赖斯 ' 围绕乔姆斯基和爱泼斯坦的事件引发的问题需要超越他们的新闻价值来看待。它们提醒我们机构对其收到的资金做出结构性反应的复杂方式。这样，我们在特刊标题中使用的“基础”一词就是查尔斯·赖斯 ' 围绕乔姆斯基和爱泼斯坦的事件引发的问题需要超越他们的新闻价值来看待。它们提醒我们机构对其收到的资金做出结构性反应的复杂方式。这样，我们在特刊标题中使用的“基础”一词就是查尔斯·赖斯