3 ms·

As time goes on, I'm understanding more and more that academic science, which I had naively imagined to be a pure endeavor prosecuted by good-hearted individual

As time goes on, I'm understanding more and more that academic science, which I had naively imagined to be a pure endeavor prosecuted by good-hearted individuals on humanity's behalf, is in fact as dominated by powerful, acquisitive individuals who are more interested in advancing their own power than in human good, knowledge, etc. The pursuit of IP is taking over the university, much to its detriment.

protomyth 11y ago
IP is just another form of applause, and with it or without it wouldn't matter or change the behavior. People who want the prestige will rise to the occasion and treat the world as a zero sum game.
- anonymfus 11y ago
  With "intellectual property" (patents in this case) it is a zero sum game.
  - protomyth 11y ago
    They would do it anyway, it just makes it more news worthy given the patents. Although, I'm not sure its zero sum depending on how it shakes out.
- daughart 11y ago
  This particular piece of IP is probably worth billions of dollars. I think that's a little better than applause.
epistasis 11y ago
Science has always been a human endeavor. The politics around mid-20th century physics is a similar minefield. However, it's far more pure, than, say, typical SV venture capital. Lander is widely known for being both a scientific and political heavyweight. He knows how to gain power, knows how to wield it, and uses it both to serve scientific goals and his own. Such use of power has pushed forward science to some degree by allowing considerable economic resources to be applied in a focused manner. But it gets used for other purposes too, because Lander is still a human, and still makes mistakes.
theophrastus 11y ago
Of the many examples of science getting nasty in the past, one could hardly do better than to revisit the "invention" of calculus. One which raged for at least two decades, and involved names now rightfully known to nearly the entire human race[1]. Then there's the still unresolved mess of who discovered the structure of DNA and the question of whether the Nobel prize partly went to someone who 'stole' the data 'over the shoulder' of someone who should have received far more credit[2]. So over its long history I think we've been very consistent in our discreditable behavior of granting scientific credit; and notice that the business notions of IP are a very recent addition to this struggle. When the treasure is seen as vast, and there's clearly enough for all, that's exactly when sharing is likely to be at a nadir; such is lamentable human nature -sigh- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz%E2%80%93Newton_calculus_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz%E2%80%93Newton_calculu... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin#Contribution_to_the_model_of_DNA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin#Contribution...
geofft 11y ago
I'm pretty confident that all the people here have human good and knowledge as their highest priority. They just differ on how to achieve it. If you are Eric Lander, you've already tuned the Broad Institute towards what you expect to be the most fruitful paths of research to improve humankind, and the best way to have it improve humankind is more funding. Michael Eisen might have different opinions on the best paths of research, and you probably have some things you think will pay off that he doesn't, or he thinks will pay off that you don't. It is entirely rational to look at the amount of money available to fund research from public sources and the amount available from private industry, and determine that the best way to save the world is to get that patent and license it aggressively. And, if you're Michael Eisen, you know that your colleagues are doing excellent work and only one person can own the patent, and that patent going to the Broad represents a significant loss to your colleagues' potential funding, so it's entirely rational to decide the best way to save the world is to contest the patent aggressively. If we, the onlookers, want to fix this, we need to fix the funding problem. I rather doubt that either Lander or Eisen were driven by desires of patent ownership or denying other people patent ownership when they originally entered the field.
lvs 11y ago
This is about right, but I think you're not properly weighting the rising role of institutional corporatism at research universities. The push for "translational" research was not driven by scientists. Scientists are not idiots, of course. They know when they have something useful. But the institutions built enormous offices filled with lawyers and finance types to promote and manage their "IP portfolios," as if schools suddenly became VCs. The proceeds from this portfolio feeds back only fractionally into research and education, but primarily it funds a vicious circle of administrative executives and contractors who are the main beneficiaries.

protomyth 11y ago

IP is just another form of applause, and with it or without it wouldn't matter or change the behavior. People who want the prestige will rise to the occasion and treat the world as a zero sum game.

anonymfus 11y ago
With "intellectual property" (patents in this case) it is a zero sum game.
- protomyth 11y ago
  They would do it anyway, it just makes it more news worthy given the patents. Although, I'm not sure its zero sum depending on how it shakes out.
daughart 11y ago
This particular piece of IP is probably worth billions of dollars. I think that's a little better than applause.

epistasis 11y ago

Science has always been a human endeavor. The politics around mid-20th century physics is a similar minefield. However, it's far more pure, than, say, typical SV venture capital. Lander is widely known for being both a scientific and political heavyweight. He knows how to gain power, knows how to wield it, and uses it both to serve scientific goals and his own. Such use of power has pushed forward science to some degree by allowing considerable economic resources to be applied in a focused manner. But it gets used for other purposes too, because Lander is still a human, and still makes mistakes.

theophrastus 11y ago

Of the many examples of science getting nasty in the past, one could hardly do better than to revisit the "invention" of calculus. One which raged for at least two decades, and involved names now rightfully known to nearly the entire human race[1]. Then there's the still unresolved mess of who discovered the structure of DNA and the question of whether the Nobel prize partly went to someone who 'stole' the data 'over the shoulder' of someone who should have received far more credit[2]. So over its long history I think we've been very consistent in our discreditable behavior of granting scientific credit; and notice that the business notions of IP are a very recent addition to this struggle. When the treasure is seen as vast, and there's clearly enough for all, that's exactly when sharing is likely to be at a nadir; such is lamentable human nature -sigh- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz%E2%80%93Newton_calculus_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz%E2%80%93Newton_calculu... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin#Contribution_to_the_model_of_DNA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosalind_Franklin#Contribution...

geofft 11y ago

I'm pretty confident that all the people here have human good and knowledge as their highest priority. They just differ on how to achieve it. If you are Eric Lander, you've already tuned the Broad Institute towards what you expect to be the most fruitful paths of research to improve humankind, and the best way to have it improve humankind is more funding. Michael Eisen might have different opinions on the best paths of research, and you probably have some things you think will pay off that he doesn't, or he thinks will pay off that you don't. It is entirely rational to look at the amount of money available to fund research from public sources and the amount available from private industry, and determine that the best way to save the world is to get that patent and license it aggressively. And, if you're Michael Eisen, you know that your colleagues are doing excellent work and only one person can own the patent, and that patent going to the Broad represents a significant loss to your colleagues' potential funding, so it's entirely rational to decide the best way to save the world is to contest the patent aggressively. If we, the onlookers, want to fix this, we need to fix the funding problem. I rather doubt that either Lander or Eisen were driven by desires of patent ownership or denying other people patent ownership when they originally entered the field.

lvs 11y ago

This is about right, but I think you're not properly weighting the rising role of institutional corporatism at research universities. The push for "translational" research was not driven by scientists. Scientists are not idiots, of course. They know when they have something useful. But the institutions built enormous offices filled with lawyers and finance types to promote and manage their "IP portfolios," as if schools suddenly became VCs. The proceeds from this portfolio feeds back only fractionally into research and education, but primarily it funds a vicious circle of administrative executives and contractors who are the main beneficiaries.