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

71–80 of 98 posts

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

#71

Post by sapote »

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,…

This reflects a lack of understanding about academic research. All researchers look for future funding from the same sources, and the same effect occurs. Oddly, given the small size of Google grants (compared to other sources) and the fact that it's rare to get them one after another, they really are very close to no-strings-attached grants.

Also, Google grants, oddly, are actually less intellectually restrictive than NSF grants. Sure, neither type of grant places any restriction, but there is actually more of a chilling effect of the NSF process than the Google one. The process Google uses for giving out grants is if there is a senior engineer or two who like your proposal, you get some funds (I'm simplifying a bit, but it's actually not much more complex than that). The NSF, on the other hand, is much more likely to consider things that I think most folks would agree shouldn't be considered, such as the political views of senior government officials.

I don't deny that Google has engineers more interested in certain problems than others, but the work that gets funded results in open research papers, so people are free to look at the work even if they don't work at Google. And that's better than Google just hiring the researchers -- as they and many other companies do -- and keeping the work for themselves.

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

#72

Post by blub »

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.

News is what is, now what you deem interesting or newsworthy. It's news because at some level many people don't find what's happening ethical, even if a lot of companies do it. Lobbying is a great example of another morally dubious activity a lot of companies engage in.

You're trying very hard to make these things seem standard and not open to objection. They should be scrutinised.

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

#73

Post by sapote »

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…

That's absolutely not the case. Government-funded research review processes are actually more prescriptive and restrictive and political than Google is. I know this first hand. It shouldn't be that way, but it is. Oddly, what ends up happening in a lot of government-funded research review systems is that those reviewing proposals are trying to guess "what kind of research would industry like to see?" so you get the worst of both worlds.

Also, Google is largely funding CS research -- this isn't the kind of thing where there's a double blind study going on. It's usually work on a new algorithm or protocol or architecture or ... -- things that are constructive engineering tasks that can be replicated by others when the researchers' papers are published.

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

#74

Post by blub »

sapote wrote: post #68

I know that the story is nonsense -- I am part of a research group that's gotten such grants before. This is basically a story aiming to confuse those who don't understand how research works. Google is funding work that aligns with what they do, but the grants they give are no-strings-attached and are tiny. (Government grants are much bigger.) Sure, Google only funds things that are related to what they care about, b…

Who funds a research should be written in bold on the first page together with their interest in the topic and any potential conflicts of interest.

The fact that the contributions were not disclosed is highly suspicious. Google is also not merely funding works that aligns with what they do, it's apparently "helped finance hundreds of research papers to DEFEND against regulatory challenges of its market dominance", which puts this in a completely different perspective. Care to comment on that?

I found another quote which is frankly mind-boggling (http://www.foxbusiness.com/features/2017/07/11/paying-profes...):

"""In some years, Google officials in Washington compiled wish lists of academic papers that included working titles, abstracts and budgets for each proposed paper -- then they searched for willing authors, according to a former employee and a former Google lobbyist.

Google promotes the research papers to government officials, and sometimes pays travel expenses for professors to meet with congressional aides and administration officials, according to the former lobbyist. The research has been used, for instance, to deflect antitrust accusations against Google by the Federal Trade Commission in 2012, according to a letter Google attorneys sent to the FTC chairman and viewed by the Journal."""

WTF? They're basically lobbying and paying professors to deflect antitrust accusations and there are people here DEFENDING them?!

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

#75

Post by blub »

sapote wrote: post #71
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,…

This reflects a lack of understanding about academic research. All researchers look for future funding from the same sources, and the same effect occurs. Oddly, given the small size of Google grants (compared to other sources) and the fact that it's rare to get them one after another, they really are very close to no-strings-attached grants. Also, Google grants, oddly, are actually less intellectually restrictive tha…

This is not about Google engineers being interested in new tree algorithms, but about Google paying for research to deflect antitrust allegations. Which worked splendidly in the US, I might add, poof went the allegations.

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

#76

Post by aangjie »

sapote wrote: post #71
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,…

This reflects a lack of understanding about academic research. All researchers look for future funding from the same sources, and the same effect occurs. Oddly, given the small size of Google grants (compared to other sources) and the fact that it's rare to get them one after another, they really are very close to no-strings-attached grants. Also, Google grants, oddly, are actually less intellectually restrictive tha…

I don't think the fact researchers look for future funding from sources doesn't affect this. This statement is the same as funding/donating to politicians' campaigns regularly, and withdrawing if they pass specific legislations.(in terms of the impact it has on the receiver.). That may or may not be intentional or is Google's blame.

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

#77

Post by sapote »

blub wrote: post #74
sapote wrote: post #68

I know that the story is nonsense -- I am part of a research group that's gotten such grants before. This is basically a story aiming to confuse those who don't understand how research works. Google is funding work that aligns with what they do, but the grants they give are no-strings-attached and are tiny. (Government grants are much bigger.) Sure, Google only funds things that are related to what they care about, b…

Who funds a research should be written in bold on the first page together with their interest in the topic and any potential conflicts of interest. The fact that the contributions were not disclosed is highly suspicious. Google is also not merely funding works that aligns with what they do, it's apparently "helped finance hundreds of research papers to DEFEND against regulatory challenges of its market dominance ", w…

I'm talking about CS research. I don't really consider law research and public policy research as real research -- that's lobbying and conflating the two is just for a headline.

Edited to add: the WSJ went on a fishing expedition -- while the story is on a few law grant tidbits that they could make into a headline, they actually were trying to get access to the private email of many CS professors. What probably happened is that they got some of that email (which I don't think they should have access to, but that's another story) and found there was nothing interesting to write about, so they found a few lobbying tidbits and painted it all with a broad brush.

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

#78

Post by sapote »

blub wrote: post #75
sapote wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reflects a lack of understanding about academic research. All researchers look for future funding from the same sources, and the same effect occurs. Oddly, given the small size of Google grants (compared to other sources) and the fact that it's rare to get them one after another, they really are very close to no-strings-attached grants. Also, Google grants, oddly, are actually less intellectually restrictive tha…

This is not about Google engineers being interested in new tree algorithms, but about Google paying for research to deflect antitrust allegations. Which worked splendidly in the US, I might add, poof went the allegations.

Yeah, like I said in another comment, I'm focused on CS research -- this other stuff, while it might be called research for the sake of the story, isn't the same thing. And the story neatly omits any mention of how much money Google has put into law research vs. CS research (for example).

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

#79

Post by lovemenot »

sapote wrote: post #78
blub wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not about Google engineers being interested in new tree algorithms, but about Google paying for research to deflect antitrust allegations. Which worked splendidly in the US, I might add, poof went the allegations.

Yeah, like I said in another comment, I'm focused on CS research -- this other stuff, while it might be called research for the sake of the story, isn't the same thing. And the story neatly omits any mention of how much money Google has put into law research vs. CS research (for example).

Imagine if this line were applied to another large heterogeneous organisation like the US Government.

I am less concerned about waterboarding in Guantanamo, which represents a miniscule proportion of the Federal budget, than social security which brings help to tens of millions. And anyway, Guantanamo is in Cuba (not even US soil) and those journalists ought not to have been talking to those prison guards.

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

#80

Post by hansjorg »

sapote wrote: post #77
blub wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who funds a research should be written in bold on the first page together with their interest in the topic and any potential conflicts of interest. The fact that the contributions were not disclosed is highly suspicious. Google is also not merely funding works that aligns with what they do, it's apparently "helped finance hundreds of research papers to DEFEND against regulatory challenges of its market dominance ", w…

I'm talking about CS research. I don't really consider law research and public policy research as real research -- that's lobbying and conflating the two is just for a headline. Edited to add: the WSJ went on a fishing expedition -- while the story is on a few law grant tidbits that they could make into a headline, they actually were trying to get access to the private email of many CS professors. What probably happe…

> I don't really consider law research and public policy research as real research

That's the topic of the article. Could you be any more disingenuous?

Post reply on HN