3 ms·

I don’t think it’s reasonable to live in 2022 and argue that academia isn’t influenced by capitalistic interests. This is so backwards of a viewpoint that I don

by yunohn 5y ago

I don’t think it’s reasonable to live in 2022 and argue that academia isn’t influenced by capitalistic interests. This is so backwards of a viewpoint that I don’t have the time to argue further.

nicoburns 5y ago
"influenced" is a much weaker claim than "controlled". Yes, there's a commercial influence, but does that prevent studies that are against those commercial interests from being conducted or those commercial studies from being criticised: no it doesn't.
- yunohn 5y ago
  I did not intend to weaken my claim - I actually do believe that most of research is controlled by commercial interests in one way or another. Governments and corporations alike allocate capital towards research that they think benefits the populace or shareholders. This is measured with a dollar value, like most things in life (thank you last stage capitalism). While the influence on certain topics might be lesser, it is definitely stronger for other topics. The vaccines are a good example of the latter, since it’s a highly profitable venture with a TAM of the entire global population. You can see this in broad daylight where Pfizer wanted to make their data public only after 75 years (1). Surely good science doesn’t need secrecy? If this doesn’t invoke skepticism into how most research is influenced similarly, I’m not sure what to say. (1) https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/paramount-importance-judge-orders-fda-hasten-release-pfizer-vaccine-docs-2022-01-07/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/paramount-importanc...
  - nicoburns 5y ago
    > You can see this in broad daylight where Pfizer wanted to make their data public only after 75 years (1). Surely good science doesn’t need secrecy? Indeed it doesn't, and it seems that was upheld by the courts which made sure that there wasn't such secrecy. To me this is evidence that while they are powerful forces with ulterior motives, there are also powerful forces fighting for the common good. And that a good proportion of the time they are successful.
    - yunohn 5y ago
      I would still beg to differ, but I can see that you’re infinitely more positive than I am. Going to court to release such important data, should be a last resort. The elites and rulers should be happy to enforce this upfront. This only shows that there’s something to hide, and as we’ve seen before - they could easily fake/hide/destroy the evidence by the time they end up releasing it. Do note that it hasn’t been released yet.

by yunohn 5y ago

nicoburns 5y ago

"influenced" is a much weaker claim than "controlled". Yes, there's a commercial influence, but does that prevent studies that are against those commercial interests from being conducted or those commercial studies from being criticised: no it doesn't.

yunohn 5y ago
I did not intend to weaken my claim - I actually do believe that most of research is controlled by commercial interests in one way or another. Governments and corporations alike allocate capital towards research that they think benefits the populace or shareholders. This is measured with a dollar value, like most things in life (thank you last stage capitalism). While the influence on certain topics might be lesser, it is definitely stronger for other topics. The vaccines are a good example of the latter, since it’s a highly profitable venture with a TAM of the entire global population. You can see this in broad daylight where Pfizer wanted to make their data public only after 75 years (1). Surely good science doesn’t need secrecy? If this doesn’t invoke skepticism into how most research is influenced similarly, I’m not sure what to say. (1) https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/paramount-importance-judge-orders-fda-hasten-release-pfizer-vaccine-docs-2022-01-07/ https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/paramount-importanc...
- nicoburns 5y ago
  > You can see this in broad daylight where Pfizer wanted to make their data public only after 75 years (1). Surely good science doesn’t need secrecy? Indeed it doesn't, and it seems that was upheld by the courts which made sure that there wasn't such secrecy. To me this is evidence that while they are powerful forces with ulterior motives, there are also powerful forces fighting for the common good. And that a good proportion of the time they are successful.
  - yunohn 5y ago
    I would still beg to differ, but I can see that you’re infinitely more positive than I am. Going to court to release such important data, should be a last resort. The elites and rulers should be happy to enforce this upfront. This only shows that there’s something to hide, and as we’ve seen before - they could easily fake/hide/destroy the evidence by the time they end up releasing it. Do note that it hasn’t been released yet.