5 ms·
Well study participants aren't charged. Maybe it's fraud against those who are funding it, but the pet owners themselves are not the current target.
by goda90 2y ago
Well study participants aren't charged. Maybe it's fraud against those who are funding it, but the pet owners themselves are not the current target.
- bsenftner 2y agoI'd examine this much deeper before engaging. It's far too consumer targeted, far too feel good. I would not be surprised if "becoming a partner" or "community scientist" required fees or more.
- carls 2y agoThis project is a research project out of the University of Washington, led by several of the professors there. I believe the lab is the Healthy Aging and Longevity Institute. They share a list of academic publications that have resulted from the project, and their Team page lists the full names a sizable large number of people. Their FAQ indicates that the cost of the DNA Kit and other things are covered by the project funding. [1] What made you think that it's engaging in fraud? I'm genuinely curious. I'm not involved in the project but just from looking at the site for several minutes, it seems to be a fairly reasonable research project. Or did you say "fraud" less to mean "these are people who are stealing money and e.g., hoarding it away" and more to mean "these are people engaging in a research project I disapprove of"? [1] https://dogagingproject.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/4416998516375-Does-it-cost-anything-to-be-part-of-TRIAD?utm_source=chatgpt.com https://dogagingproject.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/441699...
- bsenftner 2y agoHonestly, it does not appear like a research institute at all. It looks like the styling that the owners of People's Magazine or the National Enquirer would use to market their 'research nonprofit' where the actual research contribution is 3% of their revenues, while supporting fat salaries for an executive staff. It just looks too consumer and not academic, not serious. It is simply too feel good. It has the trappings of respectability, but not really. It's too slick. I also never spent the time to look deeper, the loud consumer targeted presentation drove me away.
- enraged_camel 2y agoSeveral people have corrected you, and yet you keep going, claiming that this is some sort of fraud. What's your deal? Why are you spreading FUD?
- insane_dreamer 2y agoProbably because creating a nice-looking website is more likely to drive engagement with today's users than something that looks like it was made by some academic stuck in the 90s.
- carls 2y agoI think it's reasonable to be turned off by a slick-looking website, but I imagine it's because the intended audience of the website is the general (dog-owning) public, likely for the purposes of soliciting participants. Interestingly, through engaging with you I discovered that this is a cognitive bias called the "horn effect" and is the reverse of the more common "Halo effect": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horn_effect#:~:text=The%20horn%20effect%20occurs%20when,unfavorable%20aspect%20of%20this%20person https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horn_effect#:~:text=The%20horn....
- x0x0 2y agoIf only you could check your claims with the investment of 20 seconds and 2 clicks Here, now it's one click https://dogagingproject.org/our-team https://dogagingproject.org/our-team
- zacharycohn 2y agoYou could try clicking around and reading a little bit before throwing wildly inaccurate, speculative, and slanderous accusations at an org you know nothing about.
- antisthenes 2y agoOut of curiosity, do you feel just as strongly about very prominent social justice programs for humans? Especially those that target extremely small slices of population (some would say at the expense of other larger, mostly neglected groups)
- citizenpaul 2y ago> pet owners themselves are not the current target. Uhh there is a donation button on the site.