Is University Science somehow more Pure than Industry Science?

In this Washington post article the writer (a former stem cell researcher at Harvard) argues that the view that University research/science is "curiosity-driven" is misplaced and that the incentive structure is broken. I agree!

Here are two relevant quotes from his argument that I find real.

"University researchers are in a constant battle for recognition and the rewards associated with success: research space, speaking engagements, funding and autonomy. Consequently, while academic research is often described as "curiosity-driven," the reality is messier, as (curiously) many researchers tend to pursue the trendiest technologies and explore topics that happen to be associated with the most generous levels of research support.

Moreover, since academic success is determined almost exclusively by the number and prestige of research publications, the incentives to generate results are exceedingly powerful and can encourage investigators to see patterns that may not exist, to disregard contradictory observations that might be important, to overvalue data that might be preliminary or unreliable, and to embrace conclusions that deserve to be viewed with far greater skepticism."