Yes you are. The "innovation" necessary for development is a different type from the creative spark necessary to envisage a totally new thing. Believe me, I know, because I've done both. Some folks can do one, some the other, and some both, and a very rare few can do all that, and also have (or can develop) the business skills to grow a company from a raw idea. I think in my entire forty year career, I have met at most two people in that last category (and I'm certainly not one of them....I lack the business savvy).
"In the case of IPCC, there is."
Nope. The problem with the IPCC (and the rest of the global warming hoopla) is a lack of ethics, not money. Money just makes the lack of ethics worse.
"I agree that all 3 effects are possible, but I would not go so far as to say that it is "just money," since its political associations make it particularly dangerous. In the case of IPCC, the victim is science itself."
Again, it's not the money that is the problem, it is the ethics of the people involved. This is true for all cases, be it government or corporate. "Giant" organizations foster anonymity, which allows (and even rewards) a "win at any cost" mode of thinking that has negative consequences.
"BTW, did you ever meet Gilbert Shelton?
Nope, never did. Got my exposure to the WW character from "Mad" magazine in college (which was a LONG time ago!).
Sometimes it is, but I think you are making arbitrary categories. Some of the "technical solutions" that scientists had to provide on the Manhattan Project required a more profound "creative spark" than the "main idea" on other projects.
But all this is secondary to the problems of government funding, which is the main dispute here.
The problem with the IPCC (and the rest of the global warming hoopla) is a lack of ethics, not money. Money just makes the lack of ethics worse.
Without money the IPCC would not exist. There are potential ethical problems everywhere, and many of these potential problems will not do any great harm without money.
In a way though, it's pointless to debate a chicken and egg problem. If I give my junkie sister money and she buys drugs with that money, is the problem the money or the sister, or both?