3 ms·

Even if that's true, that only science that can have a profit motive slapped on it can be done effectively in the current system is a problem. If only such scie

Even if that's true, that only science that can have a profit motive slapped on it can be done effectively in the current system is a problem. If only such science were done, then we would have different crises of science to deal with because profit seeking is at odds with much science, in particular basic research. It's also quite obviously the case that profit seeking research has incentives to be bad science in other ways.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> It's also quite obviously the case that profit seeking research has incentives to be bad science in other ways I agree. My point is the Marxist framework is a bad one for modern science. We have endowed academics and ones working for private institutions and getting grants from public bodies run by scientists. Privately-financed biotech companies founded by academics taking moon shots and getting acquired by marketing and distribution powerhouses. Even delineating who is "capital" and who is "labour" quickly becomes pedantic more than useful.
- danharaj 9y ago
  > My broader point is the Marxian framework is a bad one for modern science. I will concede that it's reasonable to think it's an incomplete and limited framework, but I have to take issue with calling it bad. For example, I think this starting point is more productive than the premises of this report. > Privately-financed biotech companies founded by academics taking moon shots and getting acquired by marketing and distribution powerhouses. Even delineating who is "capital" and who is "labour" quickly becomes pedantic more than useful. In this example it's plain to me that VCs are capital and entrepreneurs are labor. That's usually the game in such moonshots. Here we can analyze what sort of science is being done through this relationship through a Marxian lens too. VC's want to make big bets with potentially astronomical upside. That means only certain kinds of science will ever be done in this way. Yea, this kind of science is probably more replicable on average, but what about something like Theranos? This sort of science funding has its own problems with inefficient and incomplete allocation of resources. I'm not a hardcore Marxist; I don't think you can reduce the world to one grand theory based on hot takes inspired by Hegel, but I think it's a more powerful tool than most care to admit.
- wsy 9y ago
  I do not see much need for delineation. In today's world, every higher-level employee can be analyzed just fine from both sides: - she is exploited, i.e., forced to act in a profit-maximizing way (in particular, short-term profit). Each other behavior will be penalized (no career, no tenure, ...). - she is exploiting, i.e., forces her workforce to act in way that they maximize her profit.
quantumofmalice 9y ago
Your original thesis just got completely destroyed and now you are bring up unrelated speculative issues not explored in the article. Just admit that the marxist analysis doesn't hold much water in this case. That doesn't mean it is never useful, just that you might need to think a bit before applying it.
- danharaj 9y ago
  > Your original thesis just got completely destroyed You're really set off by the word M__x, aren't you?

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> It's also quite obviously the case that profit seeking research has incentives to be bad science in other ways I agree. My point is the Marxist framework is a bad one for modern science. We have endowed academics and ones working for private institutions and getting grants from public bodies run by scientists. Privately-financed biotech companies founded by academics taking moon shots and getting acquired by marketing and distribution powerhouses. Even delineating who is "capital" and who is "labour" quickly becomes pedantic more than useful.

danharaj 9y ago
> My broader point is the Marxian framework is a bad one for modern science. I will concede that it's reasonable to think it's an incomplete and limited framework, but I have to take issue with calling it bad. For example, I think this starting point is more productive than the premises of this report. > Privately-financed biotech companies founded by academics taking moon shots and getting acquired by marketing and distribution powerhouses. Even delineating who is "capital" and who is "labour" quickly becomes pedantic more than useful. In this example it's plain to me that VCs are capital and entrepreneurs are labor. That's usually the game in such moonshots. Here we can analyze what sort of science is being done through this relationship through a Marxian lens too. VC's want to make big bets with potentially astronomical upside. That means only certain kinds of science will ever be done in this way. Yea, this kind of science is probably more replicable on average, but what about something like Theranos? This sort of science funding has its own problems with inefficient and incomplete allocation of resources. I'm not a hardcore Marxist; I don't think you can reduce the world to one grand theory based on hot takes inspired by Hegel, but I think it's a more powerful tool than most care to admit.
wsy 9y ago
I do not see much need for delineation. In today's world, every higher-level employee can be analyzed just fine from both sides: - she is exploited, i.e., forced to act in a profit-maximizing way (in particular, short-term profit). Each other behavior will be penalized (no career, no tenure, ...). - she is exploiting, i.e., forces her workforce to act in way that they maximize her profit.

quantumofmalice 9y ago

Your original thesis just got completely destroyed and now you are bring up unrelated speculative issues not explored in the article. Just admit that the marxist analysis doesn't hold much water in this case. That doesn't mean it is never useful, just that you might need to think a bit before applying it.

danharaj 9y ago
> Your original thesis just got completely destroyed You're really set off by the word M__x, aren't you?