5 ms·

This. Any time "science" supports large corporations making a lot of money, you should look more carefully. It doesn't mean that the science has been bent or

This. Any time "science" supports large corporations making a lot of money, you should look more carefully. It doesn't mean that the science has been bent or broken, but it's a warning sign. I think it should be clear that now more than ever that big corporations have the "means" to influence politicians, media, scientists and the general public in fantastic and dreadfully successful ways. If this influence will result in their profit, you have the "motive". How to unwind this mess is a bit more or a puzzle - looking for solutions.

sandworm101 5y ago
>> Any time "science" supports large corporations making a lot of money, you should look more carefully. Is there anything, any issue, that doesn't involve large corporations making lots of money? If we second-guess science just because it profits some corporation with a product to sell then we won't ever get around to making real changes. California just halted sales of small IC engine (leave blowers and the like). That's a boon for all sorts of battery makers. But it is still a small step in the right direction.
- xxpor 5y ago
  Who was funding the physicists and chemists in the extremely productive 1880-1940 era? I know it was universities, but who was funding them? Genuinely have no idea how things worked back then, especially in Europe.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    Industry was funding most of them, not universities. Because they were interested in all of the various applications to metallurgy, design of engines, new compounds and medicines, etc. To the degree that the public funded research, it was military labs and industries contracted by the military. The idea of universities funding basic research really took off in the postwar era when we funneled trillions of dollars into universities, massively expanding them and reshaping them. Prior to that, universities were much smaller and did not have a substantial body of faculty doing research, they focused on education and training. In modern universities, the faculty focuses on research and teaching is done by teaching assistants and non-tenured faculty, often working on short term contracts. That is all a consequence of the flood of government grants unleashed after the 1940s. Prior to the 1940s, most research was done by private enterprise or the military.
- forgotmypw17 5y ago
  I think the biggest takeaway here is not for society as a whole, nor for those involved in "science" directly, but for the individuals, families, tribes, small communities, and caretakers. Progress is inevitable, and so is the damage from it. This article is a guide on how to stay out of the way and avoid being trampled by its wheels.
- lovethyenemy 5y ago
  >Is there anything, any issue, that doesn't involve large corporations making lots of money? Preventative health practices, especially those utilizing simple, unpatentable, natural tools and techniques.
laurent92 5y ago
“Modernity” is the definition of driving society through rationality, ie science. So, whoever can drive science, can drive politics and consumer choices. Politicians, lobbies and companies have understood it long ago. So, there is such a pressure on “science” to deliver some results, that the processes cave and give in to influence, at least by the simple fact that one side is funded and the other not.
RandomLensman 5y ago
I would extend this: any time "science" supports large shifts in wealth and/or power, careful examination is required. Not just the corporate world but also the political world has a "checkered" history in relation to utilizing science.
- yehosef 5y ago
  good point.
api 5y ago
I'd broaden this to: any time science seems to strongly support money or power. Governments are large corporations with a monopoly on force. Again it doesn't prove the science is wrong, but it should cause you to put your skeptic hat on and take a deeper look. Assuming the science is not wrong, keep in mind that the framing could be questionable or if there's a problem there may be solutions that are not being discussed because they do not benefit money or power.
hhs 5y ago
> Any time “science” supports large corporations making a lot of money, you should look more carefully. Near the end of this conversation piece, that point is noted: “The CTR [Council for Tobacco Research] would say, “Publish whatever you want.” But the bias was built in to the selection of problems in the first place. And that’s a general principle that historians and philosophers need to pay more attention to: Problem selection and funding shape what kind of science gets done. One of the more general points about agnotology is that there are infinitely many things you might know, and that whatever in fact becomes known is only a tiny sliver of what might be known — infinitesimal really. What this means is that when you’re shining a light on something, almost everything else remains in the dark. And sometimes that darkness is deliberately kept dark; the darkness itself may be created, maintained, exaggerated, inflated, and reinforced, sometimes even by the very power of the light itself (think flashy fish lures or Donald Trump). I think there’s an assumption in a lot of thinking about science that there is some finite quantum of knowledge humans might acquire. Maybe we’ll never get it all, but at least we’re moving forward, vanquishing the darkness. But darkness has many friends, and often deep pockets as well. And darkness can easily grow as fast as (or faster than) the light. So it’s much more a constructive or organic metaphor that we need.”
gorwell 5y ago
> If this influence will result in their profit, you have the "motive". Case in point: The pharmaceutical industry.

sandworm101 5y ago

>> Any time "science" supports large corporations making a lot of money, you should look more carefully. Is there anything, any issue, that doesn't involve large corporations making lots of money? If we second-guess science just because it profits some corporation with a product to sell then we won't ever get around to making real changes. California just halted sales of small IC engine (leave blowers and the like). That's a boon for all sorts of battery makers. But it is still a small step in the right direction.

xxpor 5y ago
Who was funding the physicists and chemists in the extremely productive 1880-1940 era? I know it was universities, but who was funding them? Genuinely have no idea how things worked back then, especially in Europe.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  Industry was funding most of them, not universities. Because they were interested in all of the various applications to metallurgy, design of engines, new compounds and medicines, etc. To the degree that the public funded research, it was military labs and industries contracted by the military. The idea of universities funding basic research really took off in the postwar era when we funneled trillions of dollars into universities, massively expanding them and reshaping them. Prior to that, universities were much smaller and did not have a substantial body of faculty doing research, they focused on education and training. In modern universities, the faculty focuses on research and teaching is done by teaching assistants and non-tenured faculty, often working on short term contracts. That is all a consequence of the flood of government grants unleashed after the 1940s. Prior to the 1940s, most research was done by private enterprise or the military.
forgotmypw17 5y ago
I think the biggest takeaway here is not for society as a whole, nor for those involved in "science" directly, but for the individuals, families, tribes, small communities, and caretakers. Progress is inevitable, and so is the damage from it. This article is a guide on how to stay out of the way and avoid being trampled by its wheels.
lovethyenemy 5y ago
>Is there anything, any issue, that doesn't involve large corporations making lots of money? Preventative health practices, especially those utilizing simple, unpatentable, natural tools and techniques.

laurent92 5y ago

“Modernity” is the definition of driving society through rationality, ie science. So, whoever can drive science, can drive politics and consumer choices. Politicians, lobbies and companies have understood it long ago. So, there is such a pressure on “science” to deliver some results, that the processes cave and give in to influence, at least by the simple fact that one side is funded and the other not.

RandomLensman 5y ago

I would extend this: any time "science" supports large shifts in wealth and/or power, careful examination is required. Not just the corporate world but also the political world has a "checkered" history in relation to utilizing science.

yehosef 5y ago
good point.

api 5y ago

I'd broaden this to: any time science seems to strongly support money or power. Governments are large corporations with a monopoly on force. Again it doesn't prove the science is wrong, but it should cause you to put your skeptic hat on and take a deeper look. Assuming the science is not wrong, keep in mind that the framing could be questionable or if there's a problem there may be solutions that are not being discussed because they do not benefit money or power.

hhs 5y ago

> Any time “science” supports large corporations making a lot of money, you should look more carefully. Near the end of this conversation piece, that point is noted: “The CTR [Council for Tobacco Research] would say, “Publish whatever you want.” But the bias was built in to the selection of problems in the first place. And that’s a general principle that historians and philosophers need to pay more attention to: Problem selection and funding shape what kind of science gets done. One of the more general points about agnotology is that there are infinitely many things you might know, and that whatever in fact becomes known is only a tiny sliver of what might be known — infinitesimal really. What this means is that when you’re shining a light on something, almost everything else remains in the dark. And sometimes that darkness is deliberately kept dark; the darkness itself may be created, maintained, exaggerated, inflated, and reinforced, sometimes even by the very power of the light itself (think flashy fish lures or Donald Trump). I think there’s an assumption in a lot of thinking about science that there is some finite quantum of knowledge humans might acquire. Maybe we’ll never get it all, but at least we’re moving forward, vanquishing the darkness. But darkness has many friends, and often deep pockets as well. And darkness can easily grow as fast as (or faster than) the light. So it’s much more a constructive or organic metaphor that we need.”

gorwell 5y ago

> If this influence will result in their profit, you have the "motive". Case in point: The pharmaceutical industry.