5 ms·

In the corporate world, just like government funded research, science is only science if it aligns with the desires of its funding source unfortunately.

xadhominemx 4y ago
I never experienced anything like this during the course of my government funded research. Nor did I hear of anyone else experiencing anything like this. Of course, your topic area has to align with government funders’ interests… but in my experience the conclusions do not.
- verisimi 4y ago
  But if your conclusions do not align with the funders desires, would your research see the light of day? If you have that much money that you can fund lots of studies, the only ones that will proceed are the ones in support of whatever-it-is.
  - BeetleB 4y ago
    > But if your conclusions do not align with the funders desires, would your research see the light of day? In academia: Yes. The number of grants that require pre-publishing approval from funding agency is extremely tiny. I never encountered one while in academia.
  - xadhominemx 4y ago
    If your topic area aligns with your government funders interests but your conclusions do not, it usually means you were working on a scientific dead end anyway
  - yodon 4y ago
    > But if your conclusions do not align with the funders desires, would your research see the light of day? If you are in academic science doing publicly funded academic research, as most academics do, then yes, your funding agency does want you to get the results published, period. The conspiracy theories you've been led to believe are just that, conspiracy theories, not the objective realities of those doing the work.
    - trompetenaccoun 4y ago
      It's not a matter of publishing, it's a matter of funding the research in the first place. What academic field are you in where this isn't a problem? Even something as seemingly inconspicuous as physics research is highly political. Researchers know the ideas that one better doesn't question if one cares about job security. Or put in a more positive way: You better look into -current list of hype topics- if you want to continue getting funded, being cited and staying relevant. The problem with "academic science" as you call it is that it's mostly academic and not enough science.
      - yodon 4y ago
        Funding is always going to be preferentially available for the things that people are interested in. That's true in all aspects of life, not just in science. If you want to challenge the Standard Model in Physics, of course you're going to have to work harder to get funding. That's because the betting money is of the opinion it's probably at least mostly correct. That rational allocation of funds bias doesn't prevent you from doing research or from getting it published, it just says that yes, if you want to challenge the prevailing wisdom you're going to have to work pretty hard to pull it off and convince people the standard model of the field is wrong.
- protomyth 4y ago
  I take it you never had a grant director run afoul of one of the consulting firms on I Street who didn't get the follow-on evaluation contract? 25 years and I'm still a bit peeved about how politics and who gets what makes government research such a pain in the butt. Every agency has its prejudices also which leads to some shenanigans. Sorta off topic tip: if you are writing government grants and are in a position to become a reader, then do so. It gives you an idea how they thinks, tells you what words / wording will get your grant down-voted, and it gives you some good contacts. Had relatives do that, but went a different career direction.
  - N1H1L 4y ago
    What?
    - protomyth 4y ago
      Grants are often government originated in the US and politics and people can affect the results and funding.
yodon 4y ago
You may want to spend less time reading anti-intellectual media and more time talking to people who actually do academic scientific research. There are many challenges in academic science, but it does a remarkably good job of not falling prey to the strawman risks you believe in. Corporate research is of course subject to the economic interests of the corporation. Academic research is not held back from publishing in the same way.
- guhidalg 4y ago
  Does it? I picked the first professor from MIT's CSAIL group (Hal Abelson), found their latest published paper (https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/irrodl/2022-v23-n1-irrodl06775/1086460ar/ https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/irrodl/2022-v23-n1-irrodl...) and found that they are funded by a Chinese governmental organization. Tell me how the research isn't being influenced by the needs and desires of the funder?
  - yodon 4y ago
    MIT CSAIL is not hard up for funding, nor is Hal Abelson. They can choose who they want to take money from. Funding sources that restrain a researcher's ability to publish damage that researcher's ability to advance their own career. Many people here on HN have, for example, an irrational hatred and distrust of Microsoft. Microsoft Research, however is one of the biggest sources of computer science research funding in the world. If MSR funds you, they expect your work to result in publications and the primary factor in whether you get additional funding is whether your papers impact your field. Those characteristics make MSR funding highly desirable, precisely because it comes with no strings attached.
    - leephillips 4y ago
      “Many people here on HN have, for example, an irrational hatred and distrust of Microsoft”. Perhaps. Many people here on HN also have an entirely rational hatred and distrust of Microsoft. Some of those people are also capable of appreciating their support for research.

xadhominemx 4y ago

I never experienced anything like this during the course of my government funded research. Nor did I hear of anyone else experiencing anything like this. Of course, your topic area has to align with government funders’ interests… but in my experience the conclusions do not.

verisimi 4y ago
But if your conclusions do not align with the funders desires, would your research see the light of day? If you have that much money that you can fund lots of studies, the only ones that will proceed are the ones in support of whatever-it-is.
- BeetleB 4y ago
  > But if your conclusions do not align with the funders desires, would your research see the light of day? In academia: Yes. The number of grants that require pre-publishing approval from funding agency is extremely tiny. I never encountered one while in academia.
- xadhominemx 4y ago
  If your topic area aligns with your government funders interests but your conclusions do not, it usually means you were working on a scientific dead end anyway
- yodon 4y ago
  > But if your conclusions do not align with the funders desires, would your research see the light of day? If you are in academic science doing publicly funded academic research, as most academics do, then yes, your funding agency does want you to get the results published, period. The conspiracy theories you've been led to believe are just that, conspiracy theories, not the objective realities of those doing the work.
  - trompetenaccoun 4y ago
    It's not a matter of publishing, it's a matter of funding the research in the first place. What academic field are you in where this isn't a problem? Even something as seemingly inconspicuous as physics research is highly political. Researchers know the ideas that one better doesn't question if one cares about job security. Or put in a more positive way: You better look into -current list of hype topics- if you want to continue getting funded, being cited and staying relevant. The problem with "academic science" as you call it is that it's mostly academic and not enough science.
    - yodon 4y ago
      Funding is always going to be preferentially available for the things that people are interested in. That's true in all aspects of life, not just in science. If you want to challenge the Standard Model in Physics, of course you're going to have to work harder to get funding. That's because the betting money is of the opinion it's probably at least mostly correct. That rational allocation of funds bias doesn't prevent you from doing research or from getting it published, it just says that yes, if you want to challenge the prevailing wisdom you're going to have to work pretty hard to pull it off and convince people the standard model of the field is wrong.
protomyth 4y ago
I take it you never had a grant director run afoul of one of the consulting firms on I Street who didn't get the follow-on evaluation contract? 25 years and I'm still a bit peeved about how politics and who gets what makes government research such a pain in the butt. Every agency has its prejudices also which leads to some shenanigans. Sorta off topic tip: if you are writing government grants and are in a position to become a reader, then do so. It gives you an idea how they thinks, tells you what words / wording will get your grant down-voted, and it gives you some good contacts. Had relatives do that, but went a different career direction.
- N1H1L 4y ago
  What?
  - protomyth 4y ago
    Grants are often government originated in the US and politics and people can affect the results and funding.

yodon 4y ago

You may want to spend less time reading anti-intellectual media and more time talking to people who actually do academic scientific research. There are many challenges in academic science, but it does a remarkably good job of not falling prey to the strawman risks you believe in. Corporate research is of course subject to the economic interests of the corporation. Academic research is not held back from publishing in the same way.

guhidalg 4y ago
Does it? I picked the first professor from MIT's CSAIL group (Hal Abelson), found their latest published paper (https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/irrodl/2022-v23-n1-irrodl06775/1086460ar/ https://www.erudit.org/en/journals/irrodl/2022-v23-n1-irrodl...) and found that they are funded by a Chinese governmental organization. Tell me how the research isn't being influenced by the needs and desires of the funder?
- yodon 4y ago
  MIT CSAIL is not hard up for funding, nor is Hal Abelson. They can choose who they want to take money from. Funding sources that restrain a researcher's ability to publish damage that researcher's ability to advance their own career. Many people here on HN have, for example, an irrational hatred and distrust of Microsoft. Microsoft Research, however is one of the biggest sources of computer science research funding in the world. If MSR funds you, they expect your work to result in publications and the primary factor in whether you get additional funding is whether your papers impact your field. Those characteristics make MSR funding highly desirable, precisely because it comes with no strings attached.
  - leephillips 4y ago
    “Many people here on HN have, for example, an irrational hatred and distrust of Microsoft”. Perhaps. Many people here on HN also have an entirely rational hatred and distrust of Microsoft. Some of those people are also capable of appreciating their support for research.