3 ms·

Unpopular opinion, but they aren't that far off with regards to academia. Academia has little scientific agenda at its core—most things boil down to money. If

Unpopular opinion, but they aren't that far off with regards to academia. Academia has little scientific agenda at its core—most things boil down to money. If you want to make a case for your idea on any topic, put money on that topic and professors and researchers work towards making a case for it (this is less true about math and (maybe?) physics but the farther you get from those topics, the more impact money has on results and ideas). Academia (mostly? in the US) is just yet another institution that is solely driven by money.

viraptor 7y ago
> Academia has little scientific agenda at its core—most things boil down to money. It's like you're right, but completely wrong at the same time... At it's core, scientific research should not have an agenda. Researchers are normally happy to do important things and they have good ideas. Yes, the funding is a really big issue and lack of needed followups to interesting results of the initial sponsor often happens when the sponsor is not involved anymore. Researchers essentially either have to work for someone or come up with topics and then beg potentially-interested people for money. (aka research grants) Academia being driven by money has less to do with academia and more with lack of money it needs to work on independent research.
- diffserv 7y ago
  You are assuming that everybody in this system is honest: researchers, funders, and companies. None of these entities need to be honest to do research or to come up with topics. This is a big fallacy with academic research: nobody needs to be honest or truthful, and as much as you like to believe they are, they have no reason to be honest. I have experienced this first hand during my PhD life. > Researchers are normally happy to do important things and they have good ideas. That's not how research works, however---at least not what I experienced. Usually a goal is the prerequisite of the funding. If that goal doesn't align up with the interest of the company/or the funder, there won't be any funding to begin with. That's a lie that researchers tell themselves, that they have the freedom to work on w/e they find amusing. > Academia being driven by money has less to do with academia and more with lack of money it needs to work on independent research. Sure. If academia was a utopia that wasn't so dependent on money (and fame), science would take over. That utopia isn't anywhere in sight, however. Try going through academic job market: a popular question you get is how you are going to bring money into the university. If you don't have a good answer, you won't get a position. As a professor, you will be spending 80%+ of your time writing grants or, as you put it, begging different companies for money. The other 20% is spent on classes and bureaucratic headaches. A good professor that I knew had a long rant on how she never gets to do research anymore (from a very well known university). People twist words and data to make their point, get a publication, make a name for themselves, get more money, and repeat the cycle, all in the name of research and science. My point isn't that the academic people as a whole are bad, but many of them are trying to survive and are willing to do w/e it takes to bring in money. It is very easy to abuse the bunch when people are trying to survive. All I am suggesting is that you need to be critical when reading academic papers. Regardless of the content, topic, etc. read and decide for yourself---if it is a field that you are proficient in---or read opinions on counter points.
  - viraptor 7y ago
    > This is a big fallacy with academic research: nobody needs to be honest or truthful, and as much as you like to believe they are, they have no reason to be honest. They don't have to be as long as others can verify their findings. At some point, mistakes and dishonesty should be treated the same way. > Usually a goal is the prerequisite of the funding. If that goal doesn't align up with the interest of the company/or the funder, there won't be any funding to begin with. I think we're very much in agreement. I just don't put that as academia's problem, but rather explicitly on how we fund it. A.k.a blame the game not the player.

viraptor 7y ago

> Academia has little scientific agenda at its core—most things boil down to money. It's like you're right, but completely wrong at the same time... At it's core, scientific research should not have an agenda. Researchers are normally happy to do important things and they have good ideas. Yes, the funding is a really big issue and lack of needed followups to interesting results of the initial sponsor often happens when the sponsor is not involved anymore. Researchers essentially either have to work for someone or come up with topics and then beg potentially-interested people for money. (aka research grants) Academia being driven by money has less to do with academia and more with lack of money it needs to work on independent research.

diffserv 7y ago
You are assuming that everybody in this system is honest: researchers, funders, and companies. None of these entities need to be honest to do research or to come up with topics. This is a big fallacy with academic research: nobody needs to be honest or truthful, and as much as you like to believe they are, they have no reason to be honest. I have experienced this first hand during my PhD life. > Researchers are normally happy to do important things and they have good ideas. That's not how research works, however---at least not what I experienced. Usually a goal is the prerequisite of the funding. If that goal doesn't align up with the interest of the company/or the funder, there won't be any funding to begin with. That's a lie that researchers tell themselves, that they have the freedom to work on w/e they find amusing. > Academia being driven by money has less to do with academia and more with lack of money it needs to work on independent research. Sure. If academia was a utopia that wasn't so dependent on money (and fame), science would take over. That utopia isn't anywhere in sight, however. Try going through academic job market: a popular question you get is how you are going to bring money into the university. If you don't have a good answer, you won't get a position. As a professor, you will be spending 80%+ of your time writing grants or, as you put it, begging different companies for money. The other 20% is spent on classes and bureaucratic headaches. A good professor that I knew had a long rant on how she never gets to do research anymore (from a very well known university). People twist words and data to make their point, get a publication, make a name for themselves, get more money, and repeat the cycle, all in the name of research and science. My point isn't that the academic people as a whole are bad, but many of them are trying to survive and are willing to do w/e it takes to bring in money. It is very easy to abuse the bunch when people are trying to survive. All I am suggesting is that you need to be critical when reading academic papers. Regardless of the content, topic, etc. read and decide for yourself---if it is a field that you are proficient in---or read opinions on counter points.
- viraptor 7y ago
  > This is a big fallacy with academic research: nobody needs to be honest or truthful, and as much as you like to believe they are, they have no reason to be honest. They don't have to be as long as others can verify their findings. At some point, mistakes and dishonesty should be treated the same way. > Usually a goal is the prerequisite of the funding. If that goal doesn't align up with the interest of the company/or the funder, there won't be any funding to begin with. I think we're very much in agreement. I just don't put that as academia's problem, but rather explicitly on how we fund it. A.k.a blame the game not the player.