3 ms·

Wait, a profit-driven company is spending money supporting research into areas related to the company's interests? Why is this even news? Is there a single for

Wait, a profit-driven company is spending money supporting research into areas related to the company's interests? Why is this even news? Is there a single for-profit company that funds research contrary to the company's interests?

jgalt212 9y ago
It's new because the source of the funds was often not disclosed. Other than that, and it's a big that, there is not much there. And by not much, if you consider the stakes low for sustaining a monopoly as long as possible.
- ucaetano 9y ago
  You mean the researchers often did not disclose the funding? Again, why is this even news? Apparently, tomorrow the WSJ will be reporting that Google lobbies.
  - jgalt212 9y ago
    So you're saying the source of funding for publicly published research is not relevant? If so, that's not a reasonable/common position to take.
    - ucaetano 9y ago
      Not at all, I'm saying that as that's pretty much the standard across the entire industry, it is weird why this is even news. A more appropriate headline would be "Shocking news: Google is a for-profit business, and it acts like one!". Move along folks, nothing to see here. I guess yesterday was a slow news day before all the Trump Jr. stuff came out.
      - jgalt212 9y ago
        way to not concede a point
  - blub 9y ago
    News is what is, now what you deem interesting or newsworthy. It's news because at some level many people don't find what's happening ethical, even if a lot of companies do it. Lobbying is a great example of another morally dubious activity a lot of companies engage in. You're trying very hard to make these things seem standard and not open to objection. They should be scrutinised.
    - ucaetano 9y ago
      >They should be scrutinised. I'm sure they should. http://www.chronicle.com/article/Scholars-Cry-Foul-at-Their/240635 http://www.chronicle.com/article/Scholars-Cry-Foul-at-Their/... Sarah T. Roberts said she doesn’t understand why she was on the list. Sure, she told The Chronicle, she was a Google fellow in 2009, but that meant a $7,000 award to cover her expenses during a 10-week stint working in Washington, D.C., for the American Library Association. Why that 2009 fellowship would be relevant to a 2015 paper on information privacy — in which Ms. Roberts, an assistant professor of information studies at the University of California at Los Angeles, was listed as the fourth author — is not clear to her. More important, she said, she didn’t receive any money from the technology giant in connection to that paper. And if the advocacy group’s concern was that she had benefited from Google in the past, that information is on her curriculum vitae. "What else would they like me to do?" she asked. "I think it’s pretty irresponsible."
caseysoftware 9y ago
Because some groups have a vested interest (no pun intended) in building and protecting the notion that professors, scientists, and researchers* are angels without financial conflicts, personal biases, or even emotions. If people realize that they're all humans with flaws just like the rest of us, people might stop and think instead of blindly accepting their conclusions as Truth. * Except for the professors, scientists, and researchers funded by those other guys, they're malicious, biased liars trying to destroy the world.
- ocdtrekkie 9y ago
  It is definitely hard to reconcile the "science is science" notion I hear on a lot of political topics here on HN (particularly on the left) with the general acceptance in this thread that it's okay that much of that much of academia is funded by biased sources.
  - lallysingh 9y ago
    Science is still the genuine best effort approach to finding out the truth. It's still done by humans, with all their failings, but it's the best we have. And it should be treated as the best we have, especially when compared to other sources.
blub 9y ago
This kind of dismissal is at best unhelpful and at worst even suspicious. Why does it bother you that people discuss this topic? Science influences policy and influences our behaviour and well-being, of course we want to know when it's biased. The fact that it's not "new" is irrelevant. A lot of bad things are happening and sometimes we forget about a particular bad thing. Some of us genuinely don't know.

jgalt212 9y ago

It's new because the source of the funds was often not disclosed. Other than that, and it's a big that, there is not much there. And by not much, if you consider the stakes low for sustaining a monopoly as long as possible.

ucaetano 9y ago
You mean the researchers often did not disclose the funding? Again, why is this even news? Apparently, tomorrow the WSJ will be reporting that Google lobbies.
- jgalt212 9y ago
  So you're saying the source of funding for publicly published research is not relevant? If so, that's not a reasonable/common position to take.
  - ucaetano 9y ago
    Not at all, I'm saying that as that's pretty much the standard across the entire industry, it is weird why this is even news. A more appropriate headline would be "Shocking news: Google is a for-profit business, and it acts like one!". Move along folks, nothing to see here. I guess yesterday was a slow news day before all the Trump Jr. stuff came out.
    - jgalt212 9y ago
      way to not concede a point
- blub 9y ago
  News is what is, now what you deem interesting or newsworthy. It's news because at some level many people don't find what's happening ethical, even if a lot of companies do it. Lobbying is a great example of another morally dubious activity a lot of companies engage in. You're trying very hard to make these things seem standard and not open to objection. They should be scrutinised.
  - ucaetano 9y ago
    >They should be scrutinised. I'm sure they should. http://www.chronicle.com/article/Scholars-Cry-Foul-at-Their/240635 http://www.chronicle.com/article/Scholars-Cry-Foul-at-Their/... Sarah T. Roberts said she doesn’t understand why she was on the list. Sure, she told The Chronicle, she was a Google fellow in 2009, but that meant a $7,000 award to cover her expenses during a 10-week stint working in Washington, D.C., for the American Library Association. Why that 2009 fellowship would be relevant to a 2015 paper on information privacy — in which Ms. Roberts, an assistant professor of information studies at the University of California at Los Angeles, was listed as the fourth author — is not clear to her. More important, she said, she didn’t receive any money from the technology giant in connection to that paper. And if the advocacy group’s concern was that she had benefited from Google in the past, that information is on her curriculum vitae. "What else would they like me to do?" she asked. "I think it’s pretty irresponsible."

caseysoftware 9y ago

Because some groups have a vested interest (no pun intended) in building and protecting the notion that professors, scientists, and researchers* are angels without financial conflicts, personal biases, or even emotions. If people realize that they're all humans with flaws just like the rest of us, people might stop and think instead of blindly accepting their conclusions as Truth. * Except for the professors, scientists, and researchers funded by those other guys, they're malicious, biased liars trying to destroy the world.

ocdtrekkie 9y ago
It is definitely hard to reconcile the "science is science" notion I hear on a lot of political topics here on HN (particularly on the left) with the general acceptance in this thread that it's okay that much of that much of academia is funded by biased sources.
- lallysingh 9y ago
  Science is still the genuine best effort approach to finding out the truth. It's still done by humans, with all their failings, but it's the best we have. And it should be treated as the best we have, especially when compared to other sources.

blub 9y ago

This kind of dismissal is at best unhelpful and at worst even suspicious. Why does it bother you that people discuss this topic? Science influences policy and influences our behaviour and well-being, of course we want to know when it's biased. The fact that it's not "new" is irrelevant. A lot of bad things are happening and sometimes we forget about a particular bad thing. Some of us genuinely don't know.