3 ms·

Yes, because that's how research is done.

by themitigating 4y ago

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nemo44x 4y ago
It many ways it is. If your livelihood is based on your research then it's necessary for you to frame your research as important. Existentially important is even better. This way it outcompetes other studies/research/etc for funding from various sources. Why would anyone support your research if it wasn't urgent and important, etc? This is how incentives work. It's why, for instance, you have gain of function research occurring in many cases. SARS was really interesting but it turns out it was never going to be a large risk for society. Who is going to continue to fund research into it? So, your incentive is to find a way to convince people that fund things that it could in fact find a way to be a global pandemic and gain of function "research" is a great way to do this. Of course you justify it by saying "it could happen and if it did happen then we'd want to know how to prepare for it so lets find the worst ways it could get to that state before it does itself". Now that you've created something terrifying, it's much easier to get gobs of funding for your research. This is how it works.
- themitigating 4y ago
  Most people's livelihood hood is based on their job. Money as a motivation is in no way sufficient to make an accusation of corruption. So much so I didn't even read your argument
  - nemo44x 4y ago
    I’m not saying things are corrupt. Just how they are because of how incentives are structured. For instance, who would fund a climatologist that says climate change probably won’t be too bad based on his models? You’d be far better off trying to find the model that predicts disaster. That will turn heads and open wallets.
    - themitigating 4y ago
      Or saying climate change is fake if it benefits your oil company right? Why was your example the opposite. Who makes more money a scientist or exxon?

3 ms·

Yes, because that's how research is done.

by themitigating 4y ago

Yes, because that's how research is done.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
nemo44x 4y ago
It many ways it is. If your livelihood is based on your research then it's necessary for you to frame your research as important. Existentially important is even better. This way it outcompetes other studies/research/etc for funding from various sources. Why would anyone support your research if it wasn't urgent and important, etc? This is how incentives work. It's why, for instance, you have gain of function research occurring in many cases. SARS was really interesting but it turns out it was never going to be a large risk for society. Who is going to continue to fund research into it? So, your incentive is to find a way to convince people that fund things that it could in fact find a way to be a global pandemic and gain of function "research" is a great way to do this. Of course you justify it by saying "it could happen and if it did happen then we'd want to know how to prepare for it so lets find the worst ways it could get to that state before it does itself". Now that you've created something terrifying, it's much easier to get gobs of funding for your research. This is how it works.
- themitigating 4y ago
  Most people's livelihood hood is based on their job. Money as a motivation is in no way sufficient to make an accusation of corruption. So much so I didn't even read your argument
  - nemo44x 4y ago
    I’m not saying things are corrupt. Just how they are because of how incentives are structured. For instance, who would fund a climatologist that says climate change probably won’t be too bad based on his models? You’d be far better off trying to find the model that predicts disaster. That will turn heads and open wallets.
    - themitigating 4y ago
      Or saying climate change is fake if it benefits your oil company right? Why was your example the opposite. Who makes more money a scientist or exxon?