Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Paying Professors: Inside Google’s Academic Influence Campaign

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 98 posts

Re: Paying Professors: Inside Google’s Academic Influence Campaign

#31

Post by ucaetano »

jgalt212 wrote: post #29
ucaetano wrote: post #27

Wait, a profit-driven company is spending money supporting research into areas related to the company's interests? Why is this even news? Is there a single for-profit company that funds research contrary to the company's interests?

It's new because the source of the funds was often not disclosed. Other than that, and it's a big that, there is not much there. And by not much, if you consider the stakes low for sustaining a monopoly as long as possible.

You mean the researchers often did not disclose the funding? Again, why is this even news?

Apparently, tomorrow the WSJ will be reporting that Google lobbies.

Re: Paying Professors: Inside Google’s Academic Influence Campaign

#32

Post by jgalt212 »

ucaetano wrote: post #31
jgalt212 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's new because the source of the funds was often not disclosed. Other than that, and it's a big that, there is not much there. And by not much, if you consider the stakes low for sustaining a monopoly as long as possible.

You mean the researchers often did not disclose the funding? Again, why is this even news? Apparently, tomorrow the WSJ will be reporting that Google lobbies.

So you're saying the source of funding for publicly published research is not relevant? If so, that's not a reasonable/common position to take.

Re: Paying Professors: Inside Google’s Academic Influence Campaign

#33

Post by magicalist »

gnicholas wrote: post #12
__bjoernd wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's how most research funding works. The same is true if you get a government research grant - do what you want, but if they don't like your results, they are unlikely to fund you another round.

I think this is less of a concern with government funding, since in many cases the government doesn't care what you find — they just want you to do reliable research to see what the answers to relevant questions are. For example, if you say "I'm going to research the effect of eating lots of eggs on cholesterol", the government won't care what outcome you find/publish. They funded you because they want the truth to c…

> For example, if you say "I'm going to research the effect of eating lots of eggs on cholesterol", the government won't care what outcome you find/publish. They funded you because they want the truth to come out about the question you seek to answer. There are some topics where the government "has a dog in the fight" — but much of their research funding is for areas where they are truly agnostic.

This isn't true at all for NSF and NIH grants, FWIW (and "I'm going to research the effect of eating lots of eggs on cholesterol" is not at all the level of specificity of proposals, which is part of this).

It's cause for criticism about how they approve grants (null results are science, too), but it's also partly a natural result of having limited money and many many requests for it.

Re: Paying Professors: Inside Google’s Academic Influence Campaign

#34

Post by amoorthy »

Hi folks - below is an article I read recently which opened my eyes to the risks of corporate funded research. Companies have long funded research to back their interests that can have serious ramifications on public safety and use of public resources.

Long read but enjoyable and informative.

[1]: The Most Important Scientist You've Never Heard Of: http://mentalfloss.com/article/94569/clair-patterson-scienti...

Re: Paying Professors: Inside Google’s Academic Influence Campaign

#35

Post by dilemma »

chplushsieh wrote: post #9
gnicholas wrote: post #5

> The money didn’t influence his work, Mr. Heald said, and Google issued no conditions: “They said, ‘If you take this $20,000 and open up a doughnut shop with it—we’ll never give you any more money—but that’s fine.’” At a glance, this seems like the funds are no-strings-attached. But when you think for a minute, you realize it's the exact opposite. Google is saying that if they don't like what you do with the money,…

I agree with you. But what Google does is as far as any sane donator/sponsor would go. We can't really expect them to keep sponsoring more doughnut shops after they find out their money is not being put into good use.

This is missing the point. The point is that there is no free lunch.

Re: Paying Professors: Inside Google’s Academic Influence Campaign

#36

Post by ucaetano »

jgalt212 wrote: post #32
ucaetano wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean the researchers often did not disclose the funding? Again, why is this even news? Apparently, tomorrow the WSJ will be reporting that Google lobbies.

So you're saying the source of funding for publicly published research is not relevant? If so, that's not a reasonable/common position to take.

Not at all, I'm saying that as that's pretty much the standard across the entire industry, it is weird why this is even news.

A more appropriate headline would be "Shocking news: Google is a for-profit business, and it acts like one!".

Move along folks, nothing to see here. I guess yesterday was a slow news day before all the Trump Jr. stuff came out.

Re: Paying Professors: Inside Google’s Academic Influence Campaign

#37

Post by ucaetano »

amoorthy wrote: post #34

Hi folks - below is an article I read recently which opened my eyes to the risks of corporate funded research. Companies have long funded research to back their interests that can have serious ramifications on public safety and use of public resources. Long read but enjoyable and informative. [1]: The Most Important Scientist You've Never Heard Of: http://mentalfloss.com/article/94569/clair-patterson-scienti...

Well, that is the alternative? Forbidding privately-funded research? Submitting it to gigantic bureaucratic committees?

The only proposal I back is forcing publicly-funded researchers to disclose all gifts and grants, similarly to public officials, but even that is a massive bureaucratic ordeal.

Research is not a regulated environment, and it should not be one.

Re: Paying Professors: Inside Google’s Academic Influence Campaign

#38

Post by protomyth »

arebop wrote: post #24
rayiner wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not true. Grant funding is a heavily bureaucratic process, with committees scoring proposals on matrices. The bureaucrats don't really care about your previous results (they have no personal investment), and even if they did, they don't really have a mechanism to hold them against you.

Is it common for these committees to award grants to profs who (happen to) have a track record using grant funds to open doughnut shops rather than to research the topics mentioned in their previously-funded grant proposals?

From the grants I've dealt with, you better not in anyway spend the money (that includes line items for particular purposes) in a way inconsistent with the grant. Both the government and non-profits will blackball you so fast its amazing. The government might even have a talk with you.

If you absolutely have to change the budget (does happen), you better have permission.

Re: Paying Professors: Inside Google’s Academic Influence Campaign

#39

Post by Spooky23 »

gnicholas wrote: post #5

> The money didn’t influence his work, Mr. Heald said, and Google issued no conditions: “They said, ‘If you take this $20,000 and open up a doughnut shop with it—we’ll never give you any more money—but that’s fine.’” At a glance, this seems like the funds are no-strings-attached. But when you think for a minute, you realize it's the exact opposite. Google is saying that if they don't like what you do with the money,…

Given the rationalization the scientist makes, its probably wise to be skeptical of his judgements overall.

A direct quid pro quo / payment for services rendered is more honest than this model which is Google buying the professor vs. buying specific research. That's a serious ethical issue.

Re: Paying Professors: Inside Google’s Academic Influence Campaign

#40

Post by Spooky23 »

gnicholas wrote: post #12
__bjoernd wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's how most research funding works. The same is true if you get a government research grant - do what you want, but if they don't like your results, they are unlikely to fund you another round.

I think this is less of a concern with government funding, since in many cases the government doesn't care what you find — they just want you to do reliable research to see what the answers to relevant questions are. For example, if you say "I'm going to research the effect of eating lots of eggs on cholesterol", the government won't care what outcome you find/publish. They funded you because they want the truth to c…

There's different government grants. Basic research stuff isn't the same as a DARPA grant.
Post reply on HN