4 ms·

In 200 years, when we look back on how science was funded, it will seem backwards and poorly designed. Big money has infiltrated politics, media & journalism,

by dluan 10y ago

In 200 years, when we look back on how science was funded, it will seem backwards and poorly designed. Big money has infiltrated politics, media & journalism, and of course science, but for some reason the public regards scientific research as still somewhat authentic and immune to corruption. This is far from the truth, especially in the U.S., there is hardly any authentic science left. Even those well intentioned researchers play into the system of perverse incentives; publish or perish. Climate science, tobacco research, energy (see fracking), sugar, pharma (see IP), the field of macroeconomics, etc there need to be changes if not at least different avenues for how research is funded. Otherwise it will lead to what I like to think of as intellectual inequality.

tlb 10y ago
The vast majority of science research doesn't affect public policy. It's toward some goal, like making a process work better. Those scientists still need to be honest, but nobody is throwing big money at them to sway their agenda. Then sometimes, suddenly, huge money depends on a question of science. I assume concussion research was like this for a long time: they were just trying to find the best way to heal brains after damage, and it was fine to take money from whomever would fund it. Then suddenly there's a question relevant to policy: do football players suffer a lot of permanent brain damage? In fact it's crazy that such research would be funded by an organization that would be destroyed if the answer turned out a certain way. One should expect no better than with cigarette companies funding lung cancer research.
- themartorana 10y ago
  When an organization "funds" research that comes to a conclusion said organization knows to be false, that is fraud, outright. We should not accept fraud as "par for the course" or "we should expect no better." Actively attempting to defraud customers, employees, or government should be a crime.
  - tlb 10y ago
    How could they know something to be false, when their own scientists said it was true? They should have known it was bullshit (in Frankfurt's technical sense [0]), though. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit: "As such, bullshit can be neither true nor false; hence, the bullshitter is someone whose principal aim—when uttering or publishing bullshit—is to impress the listener and the reader with words that communicate an impression that something is being or has been done, words that are neither true nor false, and so obscure the facts of the matter being discussed"
    - dluan 10y ago
      Maybe when the stakes go up, it's harder to call something out as bullshit. One $10M study saying the NFL is safe for mental health will outweigh 100 $10k studies too scared to state the opposite. tbh, the NFL was smart to lump so much money as a promise to the NIH, pitting all of the institutes against one lab at BU.
  - woodman 10y ago
    That doesn't seem like a very well thought out way of defending a logical endeavor like scientific research. I don't know how you plan to learn what an "organization knows", but lets pretend that is economically feasible - what do you think the logical move is for these bad actors? Well there would be a pretty strong incentive to never "know" anything, so that wouldn't be very good. As it is now, if the funded research is bad then it won't survive for long, and neither will those with their names on the papers. Also, fraud is already a crime - but again I don't know how you plan on demonstrating the "attempting" part.
    - ghgfhgfhn 10y ago
      "if the funded research is bad then it won't survive for long" that is not necessarily true.
      - woodman 10y ago
cmsmith 10y ago
>there is hardly any authentic science left I'm sorry, but what? You list a half dozen of the hottest-button research areas, but those represent (with the exception of pharma) probably less than 2-3% of non-proprietary research. The rest of the iceberg is just normal scientists working on hard problems that aren't going to make anyone rich, and scraping by on whatever money they can find. And keeping the 'science=corrupt' idea out there doesn't make it any easier.
- Chinjut 10y ago
  In their defense, they did note "publish or perish" as a "system of perverse incentives", which presumably affects a far broader swath of science than the few politicized topics they mentioned.
- dluan 10y ago
  Would you like me to list more? The point isn't hot button topics, like gun control research, GMOs, transportation, etc, the point is that it's a feedback loop. The system is set up so that the rich get richer. The top 20 research institutions by NIH grant funding (representing 0.7% of receiving inst.) haven't changed in decades, combined receiving 20%+ of total grants [1], meanwhile the bottom is dropping out. The reason why the NFL (or gun lobby, or energy lobby, or whatever button topic you want) go to those particular universities or researchers is because of their publishing clout, making it more likely for their findings to be accepted, making it more likely that they'll receive more grants. [1] http://www.genengnews.com/insight-and-intelligence/the-top-50-nih-funded-universities-of-2014/77900233/?page=2 http://www.genengnews.com/insight-and-intelligence/the-top-5... [2] http://grantome.com/blog/rich-getting-richer http://grantome.com/blog/rich-getting-richer
- Retric 10y ago
  Hot button issues, like toxicity, health care, education, evolution, weight loss, endangered species, sleep, habitat, oral hygiene, etc. Just about anything related to either people, land, products, processes, faith, or stuff has someone who would like to influence the results. Even if it's simply do the experiment 100 times until you get the result you want. Or just quietly pull the plug when it's not going the way you hope. There are many ways to manipulate even honest research done in good faith.
ArkyBeagle 10y ago
Macroecnomics is a public policy discipline. It's inherently political. And I'd say there's plenty of macro critical of the present ... regime, but that's not the sort of people who become, say, Fed governors. If anything has been political, it's been the anti tobacco lobby. Seen these "truth.com" or "truth.org" ads? Full-metal propaganda. Quite creepy, really. All the tobacco companies did was curry doubt.
WalterBright 10y ago
I'm curious when the golden age of authentic science ever was. Phrenology, Darwin, Galileo, Lysenkoism, Astrology, etc. Research is always biased by whoever pays for it. Even self-funded research is biased. > intellectual inequality I have no idea what that is or how it applies here.
snowwrestler 10y ago
If you can think of a better way to fund science, let's hear it. There's no funding pathway that is clear of humans, and it is humans who exercise their preferences in funding paths. BTW we just detected gravity waves, which opens up the first new way of perceiving the universe since Galileo. And we can't really explain about 95% of the known mass-energy of the universe. Oh, and we just figured out a way to custom-edit genomes. Science is doing just fine right now.

by dluan 10y ago

tlb 10y ago

The vast majority of science research doesn't affect public policy. It's toward some goal, like making a process work better. Those scientists still need to be honest, but nobody is throwing big money at them to sway their agenda. Then sometimes, suddenly, huge money depends on a question of science. I assume concussion research was like this for a long time: they were just trying to find the best way to heal brains after damage, and it was fine to take money from whomever would fund it. Then suddenly there's a question relevant to policy: do football players suffer a lot of permanent brain damage? In fact it's crazy that such research would be funded by an organization that would be destroyed if the answer turned out a certain way. One should expect no better than with cigarette companies funding lung cancer research.

themartorana 10y ago
When an organization "funds" research that comes to a conclusion said organization knows to be false, that is fraud, outright. We should not accept fraud as "par for the course" or "we should expect no better." Actively attempting to defraud customers, employees, or government should be a crime.
- tlb 10y ago
  How could they know something to be false, when their own scientists said it was true? They should have known it was bullshit (in Frankfurt's technical sense [0]), though. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit: "As such, bullshit can be neither true nor false; hence, the bullshitter is someone whose principal aim—when uttering or publishing bullshit—is to impress the listener and the reader with words that communicate an impression that something is being or has been done, words that are neither true nor false, and so obscure the facts of the matter being discussed"
  - dluan 10y ago
    Maybe when the stakes go up, it's harder to call something out as bullshit. One $10M study saying the NFL is safe for mental health will outweigh 100 $10k studies too scared to state the opposite. tbh, the NFL was smart to lump so much money as a promise to the NIH, pitting all of the institutes against one lab at BU.
- woodman 10y ago
  That doesn't seem like a very well thought out way of defending a logical endeavor like scientific research. I don't know how you plan to learn what an "organization knows", but lets pretend that is economically feasible - what do you think the logical move is for these bad actors? Well there would be a pretty strong incentive to never "know" anything, so that wouldn't be very good. As it is now, if the funded research is bad then it won't survive for long, and neither will those with their names on the papers. Also, fraud is already a crime - but again I don't know how you plan on demonstrating the "attempting" part.
  - ghgfhgfhn 10y ago
    "if the funded research is bad then it won't survive for long" that is not necessarily true.
    - woodman 10y ago

cmsmith 10y ago

>there is hardly any authentic science left I'm sorry, but what? You list a half dozen of the hottest-button research areas, but those represent (with the exception of pharma) probably less than 2-3% of non-proprietary research. The rest of the iceberg is just normal scientists working on hard problems that aren't going to make anyone rich, and scraping by on whatever money they can find. And keeping the 'science=corrupt' idea out there doesn't make it any easier.

Chinjut 10y ago
In their defense, they did note "publish or perish" as a "system of perverse incentives", which presumably affects a far broader swath of science than the few politicized topics they mentioned.
dluan 10y ago
Would you like me to list more? The point isn't hot button topics, like gun control research, GMOs, transportation, etc, the point is that it's a feedback loop. The system is set up so that the rich get richer. The top 20 research institutions by NIH grant funding (representing 0.7% of receiving inst.) haven't changed in decades, combined receiving 20%+ of total grants [1], meanwhile the bottom is dropping out. The reason why the NFL (or gun lobby, or energy lobby, or whatever button topic you want) go to those particular universities or researchers is because of their publishing clout, making it more likely for their findings to be accepted, making it more likely that they'll receive more grants. [1] http://www.genengnews.com/insight-and-intelligence/the-top-50-nih-funded-universities-of-2014/77900233/?page=2 http://www.genengnews.com/insight-and-intelligence/the-top-5... [2] http://grantome.com/blog/rich-getting-richer http://grantome.com/blog/rich-getting-richer
Retric 10y ago
Hot button issues, like toxicity, health care, education, evolution, weight loss, endangered species, sleep, habitat, oral hygiene, etc. Just about anything related to either people, land, products, processes, faith, or stuff has someone who would like to influence the results. Even if it's simply do the experiment 100 times until you get the result you want. Or just quietly pull the plug when it's not going the way you hope. There are many ways to manipulate even honest research done in good faith.

ArkyBeagle 10y ago

Macroecnomics is a public policy discipline. It's inherently political. And I'd say there's plenty of macro critical of the present ... regime, but that's not the sort of people who become, say, Fed governors. If anything has been political, it's been the anti tobacco lobby. Seen these "truth.com" or "truth.org" ads? Full-metal propaganda. Quite creepy, really. All the tobacco companies did was curry doubt.

WalterBright 10y ago

I'm curious when the golden age of authentic science ever was. Phrenology, Darwin, Galileo, Lysenkoism, Astrology, etc. Research is always biased by whoever pays for it. Even self-funded research is biased. > intellectual inequality I have no idea what that is or how it applies here.

snowwrestler 10y ago

If you can think of a better way to fund science, let's hear it. There's no funding pathway that is clear of humans, and it is humans who exercise their preferences in funding paths. BTW we just detected gravity waves, which opens up the first new way of perceiving the universe since Galileo. And we can't really explain about 95% of the known mass-energy of the universe. Oh, and we just figured out a way to custom-edit genomes. Science is doing just fine right now.