3 ms·

I'm not seeing the smoking gun here in your documents. I'm aware of many academics who work with city governments, including at least one researcher not from C

by yodon 4y ago

I'm not seeing the smoking gun here in your documents. I'm aware of many academics who work with city governments, including at least one researcher not from Chicago who works closely with the city of Chicago. He does so precisely because there are big problems there. The city of Chicago may even contribute to the funding of the work he does (it's helpful for the city to have skin in the game), but they certainly don't provide the lion's share of the funding and if the city were uncooperative he'd simply shift his work to another urban area. He's not going to waste his time and career as some sort of controlled victim of an evil governmental moneybags, particularly when he's the one bringing funding to the projects. Happy to continue reading docs, but thus far I'm not seeing the conspiracy.

chaps 4y ago
The point I'm hoping to show isn't a "smoking gun" (frankly, I doubt any single document, or set of documents, would meet your criteria), but to show that research is deeply motivated by funding rather than for "pure science". Bad results that don't fit the narrative of the funders or political body's interest either don't get published, or are downplayed to the extent that they're effectively unpublished. Anything remotely positive is exploded through the roof. I recommend checking out Robert Vargas on twitter. He's a tenured professor at University of Chicago who's written a lot about this subject. https://twitter.com/robvargas21 https://twitter.com/robvargas21 This post describes a lot of the problems well: https://crimethoughts.com/year/04/24/readi-chicago-and-inconvenient-null-results/ https://crimethoughts.com/year/04/24/readi-chicago-and-incon...
- yodon 4y ago
  Reading your second set of links, it sounds like much more a case of "the media does a bad job of reporting on science" than "the research is corrupt." If you want to improve the quality of science reporting, that's probably better handled by criticizing the reporters than by criticizing the researchers (most researchers already work hard to keep their work out of the popular press, precisely because the popular press does such a bad job of reporting on research). Among the first tweets in the twitter stream you provided is a University of Chicago researcher actively criticizing the actions of the Chicago PD. That doesn't seem to support your narrative that the U of C research is corrupt and in the pocket of city government. I certainly can believe research is being poorly and inaccurately reported in the press, but again I think if you want to affect change you'll be more effective if you focus your efforts on the reporting press who seem by your own description to be the ones at fault.
  - chaps 4y ago
    You're reading things at a very surface level, friend. Good luck to you and yours.

by yodon 4y ago

chaps 4y ago

The point I'm hoping to show isn't a "smoking gun" (frankly, I doubt any single document, or set of documents, would meet your criteria), but to show that research is deeply motivated by funding rather than for "pure science". Bad results that don't fit the narrative of the funders or political body's interest either don't get published, or are downplayed to the extent that they're effectively unpublished. Anything remotely positive is exploded through the roof. I recommend checking out Robert Vargas on twitter. He's a tenured professor at University of Chicago who's written a lot about this subject. https://twitter.com/robvargas21 https://twitter.com/robvargas21 This post describes a lot of the problems well: https://crimethoughts.com/year/04/24/readi-chicago-and-inconvenient-null-results/ https://crimethoughts.com/year/04/24/readi-chicago-and-incon...

yodon 4y ago
Reading your second set of links, it sounds like much more a case of "the media does a bad job of reporting on science" than "the research is corrupt." If you want to improve the quality of science reporting, that's probably better handled by criticizing the reporters than by criticizing the researchers (most researchers already work hard to keep their work out of the popular press, precisely because the popular press does such a bad job of reporting on research). Among the first tweets in the twitter stream you provided is a University of Chicago researcher actively criticizing the actions of the Chicago PD. That doesn't seem to support your narrative that the U of C research is corrupt and in the pocket of city government. I certainly can believe research is being poorly and inaccurately reported in the press, but again I think if you want to affect change you'll be more effective if you focus your efforts on the reporting press who seem by your own description to be the ones at fault.
- chaps 4y ago
  You're reading things at a very surface level, friend. Good luck to you and yours.