I think Peter is suggesting that it is useful to diversify beyond even the usual suspects that you have listed.

There are a number of new, interesting opportunities out there. A couple that I have direct experience with:

• Corporate sponsorship of open source projects. I spent a couple of years on the board of a foundation that was set up to further the development of an open source content management system. We received a lot of funding from a corporate sponsor that was selling solutions built on our platform. Because the code was open source, there were IP complications. There are a lot of interesting open source scientific software packages out there that are useful both for academics and those in industry (see the Open Science Project ) for which this may well be a reasonable model.

• Online ad revenues (e.g. AdSense). AdSense covers phds.org's operating costs (maintenance, not new development), and they took all of 10 minutes to set up. There are probably a few other projects that would be suitable for funding in this fashion.

One interesting recent phenomenon is that a handful of wealthy are starting to sponsor science on their own. The founder of RIM (maker of the Blackberry) is funding a theoretical physics institute, for example. I have a vague memory of a similar setup in neuroscience by some other tycoon. We could be returning to an age of wealthy patrons.

Sure, these are all niches, but I'm sure there are others. Is it realistic for a majority of people (or even a substantial minority) to be funded by such means? Of course not. But if one has the opportunity to diversify away from the usual sources, so much the better.

Nice slide on the NSF, by the way. I've seen similar things elsewhere and will be looking into some of the implications over the next couple of weeks.