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

21–30 of 98 posts

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

#21

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#22

Post by gnicholas »

Godel_unicode wrote: post #18
gnicholas wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No, I was responding to a comment that made a comparison between Google and government. I'm not saying the government never cares about the outcome of research, just that some (much? most?) of their funding goes to answering research questions where the government is agnostic.

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

#23

Post by rayiner »

__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.

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.

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

#24

Post by arebop »

rayiner wrote: post #23
__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.

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?

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

#25

Post by nl »

Several papers argued that Google’s search engine should be allowed to link to books and other intellectual property that authors and publishers say should be paid for—a group that includes News Corp, which owns the Journal. News Corp formally complained to European regulators about Google’s handling of news articles in search results.

Yeah.

And all those graphs showing how big Google is have nothing to do with the story. News Corp wants an anti-trust investigation into Google in the US too.

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

#26

Post by eli_gottlieb »

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…

> 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.

I think that's a somewhat idealistic view. From my reading (which may be out of date, the book was published in 1999), even the basic research funding from governments often has a technological goal in mind, and many of the savvier grant applicants know what that goal is.

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

#28

Post by jgalt212 »

Godel_unicode wrote: post #18
gnicholas wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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.

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

#29

Post by jgalt212 »

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.

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

#30

Post by jgalt212 »

mankash666 wrote: post #20

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.

You're ignore that NSF/NIH funded research is plainly visible as the source of the funding upon publication of the research.
Post reply on HN