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

11–20 of 98 posts

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

#11

Post by dna_polymerase »

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.

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

#12

Post by gnicholas »

__bjoernd wrote: post #10
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,…

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 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.

Google, on the other hand, only funded research related to their business. So they had an agenda, and all the parties knew it.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have been able to fund this, or that this is any worse than other industry-funded research. Just that it seems some professors did not make the relevant disclosures, and there was a pretty strong incentive for professors not to bite the hand that feeds them.

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

#13

Post by GFischer »

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…

Depends on the government of course. A friend was tasked with studying some supposedly more eco-friendly fuels (biodiesel) the government had invested a lot in, and he disclosed his initial findings that they weren't eco-friendly at all, and had his funding pulled and his research buried.

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

#14

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

A company using the skyhigh profits it makes from it's market dominance to fund academic research arguing that it doesn't abuse it's market dominance? Perfect.

If you're looking for arguments for antitrust in this area beyond consumer welfare you've found them. The concentrated wealth produced by big monopolistic firms has a gravity field of it's own, distorting public information and opinion.

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

#15

Post by bykovich2 »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #8
surveilmebro wrote: post #4

To be fair, similar tactics are standard practice in many non-tech fields: pharmaceuticals, law, and agronomy to name a few. What's perhaps different here is that researchers may not be accustomed to disclosing financial support that is only weakly connected to the research in question.

Sure. Nobody's saying that Google's invented a new strategy here. We've all known Phillip Morris, Monsanto, and the like to do this, but generally such companies have been derided for the behavior. People are generally hesitant to group Google in the same class of corporate actor.

The notion that a given multinational billion-dollar syndicate is not going to engage in the behavior characteristic of multinational billion-dollar syndicates because it's run by nerds instead of suits seems, at the very least, suspect.

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

#16

Post by pc2g4d »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #6
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 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…

Feels a lot like pharmaceutical companies' corruption of doctors.

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

#17

Post by Fomite »

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #6
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 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.

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

#18

Post by Godel_unicode »

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…

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?

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

#19

Post by Godel_unicode »

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.

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

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

#20

Post by mankash666 »

Ridiculous! This is how ALL academic funding works. The headline might as well read NSF/NIH is paying professors for propagating "views". Given that Murdoch owns WSJ, fundamental science like evolution and global warming morph into "views", not facts/axioms.
Post reply on HN