4 ms·
You're equating Google's feeling about unkind results with Google's feeling about wasting the money on a donut shop. Why is that?
by Godel_unicode 9y ago
You're equating Google's feeling about unkind results with Google's feeling about wasting the money on a donut shop. Why is that?
- Spooky23 9y agoIts not an A or B question. A company isn't a charity handing out awards to random people. If they give someone money to support research without specific goals, playing nice is implied. Unprofessional conduct (blowing money on donuts) is reasonably expected to not attract more funds. But when does undesirable conduct come into play? Would they fund a guy who discovered that YouTube improves high school academic performance by 48%? Would they fund a guy who finds that YouTube slows child cognitive development? You don't know, because the company's decision making is unknown. But a clever professor who needs grants could probably make a good guess. Even if Google (or any other company) doesn't act that way or has no desire to influence research, the perception of bias still exists, and that undermines science.
- euyyn 9y agoHow could a company avoid that perception from the part of professors, though?
- Spooky23 9y agoIf the goal was to advance basic research, hire people Bell Labs style and public research in the name of the company or setup a foundation where the funding decisions are made through a process not controlled by management. My local library is prohibited from accepting many kinds of gifts as a government entity. So the library board setup a "Friends of the Library" non-profit with its own board that can accept and distribute cash or other gifts, subject to reporting requirements. You need a similar concept where you give up control. They key thing here is that perception is more important than reality. You need to work to build and maintain trust.