4 ms·

Maybe someone can word this statement in a way that actually describes the problem better for someone not as well-versed in the ins-and-outs of funding in acade

Maybe someone can word this statement in a way that actually describes the problem better for someone not as well-versed in the ins-and-outs of funding in academia? The Epstein affair brings to light a much larger problem: it undermines the integrity of the research enterprise when individuals can pick and choose lines of inquiry that appeal to them simply because they can pay for them. People funding research that interests them seems like a pretty innocuous statement by itself. Sure, it's connection to Epstein is blatantly problematic, but if you remove him specifically from the statement, what is the problem being highlighted?

sukilot 6y ago
They pay for the results they want.
- rsa25519 6y ago
  Maybe they do, but the article doesn't provide any data to back this up. I would have liked a sample size larger than one
  - TeaDrunk 6y ago
    It'd be absolute career suicide for any researcher to have their work publicly bankrolled by Epstein or reveal to the public that their research was aiming for specific goals that Epstein was looking for.
- JamesBarney 6y ago
  See I think the problem with this article is that it doesn't think it could actually make the case that Epstein could pay for results. So it basically tries to muddy the waters between "If you give a large chunk of money to a researcher you get to influence what they research" and "You get to influence the output of that research." Almost everyone agrees the latter is bad, but I think most people believe that you should be able to fund whatever research you want with your own money.
bollu 6y ago
The article explains this in the first paragraph, does it not? - ... the mockery made of academic standards when, after donating $200,000 to the psychology department, Epstein was appointed as a visiting fellow there despite a complete lack of appropriate academic qualifications. - Even after his release from prison, Epstein continued to be a frequent visitor: between 2010 and 2018 Epstein (at that point a registered sex offender) went to the PED offices more than 40 times. During that period he had an on-campus office and a key card and pass code with which he could enter buildings during off-hours. Why should a benefactor have access to the research lab they fund? The article also mentions: - The New York Times concluded that in this case it led researchers “to give credence to some of Mr. Epstein's half-baked scientific musings.” True or not, it should trouble us that a corrupt man was making decisions affecting research at a major U.S. university. He had no academic competence—yet he effectively made choices about which research initiatives were interesting and promising. So the problem it seems to be highlighting are twofold: (1) The access and "respectability" gained by donating to harvard without intellectual competence behind it, and (2) His ability to "softly dictate" researchers to give credence to his musings. For what its worth, I disagree with what the article then proceeds to reach for: > When peer review operates properly, it identifies the best ideas to support, usually by using panels—not individuals—to see to it that a range of views is represented. The process is imperfect, but women, people of color, young scholars, investigators at nonelite universities and individuals promoting ideas that challenge conventional wisdom at least have a chance
- catgary 6y ago
  - ... the mockery made of academic standards when, after donating $200,000 to the psychology department, Epstein was appointed as a visiting fellow there despite a complete lack of appropriate academic qualifications. Can we take a moment, and just laugh at the fact that for some reason it's cheaper to buy yourself a visiting fellowship in the Harvard Psych department than it is to buy your kid a seat in the undergraduate psychology program? Edit: I guess the most most eyebrow-raising revelation for me is that these positions are, in fact, for sale.
  - conistonwater 6y ago
calibas 6y ago
To me at least, the direction of scientific progress should be in the hands of scientists, not wealthy donors, big corporations or politicians. When the people who control the funding have their own narrow biases, it can't help but corrupt the results. Often, the results just disappear instead of being published when they're not what they're "supposed" to be.
- mennis16 6y ago
  I think narrow biases and unpublished results happen to some extent anyway with the politics/beauracracy that arises from having a small subset of established scientists vote on which science gets funding. I don't disagree with the concerns about wealthy donors/corporations, and I do think it is a good idea to have a large portion of funding allocated by other scientists. But I also feel a little diversity in funding sources can give labs breathing room to be more creative. There's also examples like the development of the original birth control pill- which was largely funded by one wealthy woman. I doubt it could have happened in that time period without someone wealthy with independent interests being able to push development.
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> People funding research that interests them seems like a pretty innocuous statement by itself. Sure, it's connection to Epstein is blatantly problematic, but if you remove him specifically from the statement, what is the problem being highlighted? There are two issues here. First, if it would be politically or financially more convenient to not know something, there is no money provided towards knowing it. Second, in many cases the donors get to decide whether to publish the results after the research has been done. Naturally if only one of the possible results is inconvenient and the study reaches the inconvenient conclusion, that one doesn't get published. Then all your results are totally invalidated by selection bias. It also provides the opportunity to do this: https://xkcd.com/882/ https://xkcd.com/882/ Study doesn't say what you want? Fund another one, maybe tweak it a little, sooner or later it will, and you only publish the one that does.

sukilot 6y ago

They pay for the results they want.

rsa25519 6y ago
Maybe they do, but the article doesn't provide any data to back this up. I would have liked a sample size larger than one
- TeaDrunk 6y ago
  It'd be absolute career suicide for any researcher to have their work publicly bankrolled by Epstein or reveal to the public that their research was aiming for specific goals that Epstein was looking for.
JamesBarney 6y ago
See I think the problem with this article is that it doesn't think it could actually make the case that Epstein could pay for results. So it basically tries to muddy the waters between "If you give a large chunk of money to a researcher you get to influence what they research" and "You get to influence the output of that research." Almost everyone agrees the latter is bad, but I think most people believe that you should be able to fund whatever research you want with your own money.

bollu 6y ago

The article explains this in the first paragraph, does it not? - ... the mockery made of academic standards when, after donating $200,000 to the psychology department, Epstein was appointed as a visiting fellow there despite a complete lack of appropriate academic qualifications. - Even after his release from prison, Epstein continued to be a frequent visitor: between 2010 and 2018 Epstein (at that point a registered sex offender) went to the PED offices more than 40 times. During that period he had an on-campus office and a key card and pass code with which he could enter buildings during off-hours. Why should a benefactor have access to the research lab they fund? The article also mentions: - The New York Times concluded that in this case it led researchers “to give credence to some of Mr. Epstein's half-baked scientific musings.” True or not, it should trouble us that a corrupt man was making decisions affecting research at a major U.S. university. He had no academic competence—yet he effectively made choices about which research initiatives were interesting and promising. So the problem it seems to be highlighting are twofold: (1) The access and "respectability" gained by donating to harvard without intellectual competence behind it, and (2) His ability to "softly dictate" researchers to give credence to his musings. For what its worth, I disagree with what the article then proceeds to reach for: > When peer review operates properly, it identifies the best ideas to support, usually by using panels—not individuals—to see to it that a range of views is represented. The process is imperfect, but women, people of color, young scholars, investigators at nonelite universities and individuals promoting ideas that challenge conventional wisdom at least have a chance

catgary 6y ago
- ... the mockery made of academic standards when, after donating $200,000 to the psychology department, Epstein was appointed as a visiting fellow there despite a complete lack of appropriate academic qualifications. Can we take a moment, and just laugh at the fact that for some reason it's cheaper to buy yourself a visiting fellowship in the Harvard Psych department than it is to buy your kid a seat in the undergraduate psychology program? Edit: I guess the most most eyebrow-raising revelation for me is that these positions are, in fact, for sale.
- conistonwater 6y ago

calibas 6y ago

To me at least, the direction of scientific progress should be in the hands of scientists, not wealthy donors, big corporations or politicians. When the people who control the funding have their own narrow biases, it can't help but corrupt the results. Often, the results just disappear instead of being published when they're not what they're "supposed" to be.

mennis16 6y ago
I think narrow biases and unpublished results happen to some extent anyway with the politics/beauracracy that arises from having a small subset of established scientists vote on which science gets funding. I don't disagree with the concerns about wealthy donors/corporations, and I do think it is a good idea to have a large portion of funding allocated by other scientists. But I also feel a little diversity in funding sources can give labs breathing room to be more creative. There's also examples like the development of the original birth control pill- which was largely funded by one wealthy woman. I doubt it could have happened in that time period without someone wealthy with independent interests being able to push development.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago

> People funding research that interests them seems like a pretty innocuous statement by itself. Sure, it's connection to Epstein is blatantly problematic, but if you remove him specifically from the statement, what is the problem being highlighted? There are two issues here. First, if it would be politically or financially more convenient to not know something, there is no money provided towards knowing it. Second, in many cases the donors get to decide whether to publish the results after the research has been done. Naturally if only one of the possible results is inconvenient and the study reaches the inconvenient conclusion, that one doesn't get published. Then all your results are totally invalidated by selection bias. It also provides the opportunity to do this: https://xkcd.com/882/ https://xkcd.com/882/ Study doesn't say what you want? Fund another one, maybe tweak it a little, sooner or later it will, and you only publish the one that does.