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

51–60 of 98 posts

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

#51

Post by bachmeier »

Fomite wrote: post #17
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is one of my favorites: > He said Google was careful to say the checks came with no requirements: “It was a gift. Recipients can do what they want.” I have never heard a statement so akin to organized crime as this. Things like saying how it'd 'be unfortunate if something happened to someone' or how they 'gave him a suggestion'. The fact that they are being so careful to avoid explicitly stating they paid profes…

As noted, "gift" has a very specific meaning for university funding. Corporate research sponsors generally bend over backwards to avoid paying overhead, which is irksome, but it is what it is.

> to avoid paying overhead, which is irksome

Why is it "irksome"? Pretty much every administrator treats grants as revenue (i.e., department X brought in Y grant dollars last year). I wouldn't want to give someone a grant if half of it goes to fund the university's operations.

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

#52

Post by jgalt212 »

ucaetano wrote: post #36
jgalt212 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

way to not concede a point

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

#53

Post by darawk »

dna_polymerase wrote: post #11
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,…

Of course it has a chilling effect on the researchers. If Google stops paying for your research you would have to find another source of money, that's not easy for everyone. So they will tend to write stuff in a Google-friendly fashion just to secure the money. That does not mean they will spin everything but it will surely influence the tone of their publications.

If they were worried about that they could just not take their money in the first place. I'm not sure why this is a problem.

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

#55

Post by Fomite »

bachmeier wrote: post #51
Fomite wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As noted, "gift" has a very specific meaning for university funding. Corporate research sponsors generally bend over backwards to avoid paying overhead, which is irksome, but it is what it is.

> to avoid paying overhead, which is irksome Why is it "irksome"? Pretty much every administrator treats grants as revenue (i.e., department X brought in Y grant dollars last year). I wouldn't want to give someone a grant if half of it goes to fund the university's operations.

Because grants don't price in the actual cost of doing research. The cost of toner for the copy machine, and ethernet for the servers, and the electricity for the lights, and the grant administrators who will review the contract to make sure you're not playing shenanigans with IP, etc.

All of those support research, and none of them is a direct cost.

Companies just build those kinds of costs into what they charge. Universities don't, and then get screwed because people try to wiggle their way out of paying it. They're trying to get something at a discount, and then they're often rather sanctimonious about it.

At my university, by most figures, the indirect rate isn't even enough to cover the actual cost of research. It's just closer. What the company is asking is for the good people of $State to pick up the tab for the R&D they can't be bothered to do themselves.

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

#56

Post by sjg007 »

This is nothing new. Happens with sugar lobby, happened with big tobacco and happens on climate change etc...

These are questions whose context depends on how you frame the debate. Those who frame it get to decide the playground. Helps too if you have the regulators in the same framework as well.

By framing one can argue that google is a monopoly vs it's a small player in global advertising etc... Vs Facebook etc.. same thing with net neutrality.

I think the Europeans are probably further ahead of the us on asking the right questions.

We seem to have fallen backwards where foreign power influence on our elections is reframed away.

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

#57

Post by BeetleB »

dna_polymerase wrote: post #11
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,…

Of course it has a chilling effect on the researchers. If Google stops paying for your research you would have to find another source of money, that's not easy for everyone. So they will tend to write stuff in a Google-friendly fashion just to secure the money. That does not mean they will spin everything but it will surely influence the tone of their publications.

>Of course it has a chilling effect on the researchers. If Google stops paying for your research you would have to find another source of money, that's not easy for everyone.

Except that this is very, very normal in almost all research that requires funding. Talk to faculty members in engineering departments, and they'll tell you they often spend most of their professional time grant writing.

Saying this has a chilling effect is like saying a store requiring money in exchange for goods has a chilling effect because it means the purchaser is constantly in need of earning money to eat.

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

#58

Post by euyyn »

Spooky23 wrote: post #43
Godel_unicode wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're equating Google's feeling about unkind results with Google's feeling about wasting the money on a donut shop. Why is that?

Its not an A or B question. A company isn't a charity handing out awards to random people. If they give someone money to support research without specific goals, playing nice is implied. Unprofessional conduct (blowing money on donuts) is reasonably expected to not attract more funds. But when does undesirable conduct come into play? Would they fund a guy who discovered that YouTube improves high school academic perf…

How could a company avoid that perception from the part of professors, though?

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

#59

Post by joshuamorton »

jgalt212 wrote: post #28
Godel_unicode wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're comparing apples to oranges; Government not caring about negative/positive results and Google only funding things they care about. Are you implying that government funds research when the topic isn't something they care about, or that Google only likes positive results?

Google like the tobacco and oil companies and soda companies, etc largely/only want to fund research that furthers their business and public policy aims. It's pretty simple. To equate the two, you'd have to say the USG only funds research that increases the size and scope of USG.

(Disclosure that I work at google)

Well, I mean there is that whole thing about how federal funding cannot go to gun violence research. So there are absolutely types of research that the government not just passively, but actively attempts to prevent.

I'm not saying that Google is being a good guy here, but I also don't think you can so easily make the argument that the (US) government is any better.

Post reply on HN