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

41–50 of 98 posts

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

#41

Post by Spooky23 »

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?

The government doesn't give you spending money for you to do with as you please. There's a whole web of strings attached.

If you open a donut shop with it, you're probably commuting an act of fraud.

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

#42

Post by sdenton4 »

dilemma wrote: post #35
chplushsieh wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But there might be free donuts. Once, anyway.

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

#43

Post by Spooky23 »

Godel_unicode wrote: post #19
dna_polymerase wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

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 performance by 48%? Would they fund a guy who finds that YouTube slows child cognitive development?

You don't know, because the company's decision making is unknown. But a clever professor who needs grants could probably make a good guess. Even if Google (or any other company) doesn't act that way or has no desire to influence research, the perception of bias still exists, and that undermines science.

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

#44

Post by thinkfurther »

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...

Thank you for posting that. Looking for a source for one of the quotes, I found this: https://www.scribd.com/doc/139421699/oh-patterson

(here's the bit I was looking for)

> Look, I’m stupid, all right? I’m not some brilliant person. I’m a little child. You know the emperor’s new clothes? I can see the naked emperor, just because I’m a little child-minded person. I’m not smart. I mean, good scientists are like that. They have the minds of children, to see through all this façade of all this other stuff that they know is stupid nonsense. They just don’t see it the way other people see it.

I for one indeed have never heard to of him before, and I'll have to learn more; and that on top of the article and the subject matter of it being vitally important! Thanks again.

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

#45

Post by [deleted] »

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,…

[deleted]

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

#46

Post by caseysoftware »

gnicholas wrote: post #22
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?

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.

The government is made up of people who are fundamentally no better or worse than anyone else.

Instead of accepting that anyone is an angel or devil, we should approach all results with a critical eye and push for reproducibility.

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

#47

Post by Clanan »

__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 reflects the problems with research funding - they too incentivize "desired" results, rather than knowledge (good or bad).

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

#48

Post by caseysoftware »

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?

Because some groups have a vested interest (no pun intended) in building and protecting the notion that professors, scientists, and researchers* are angels without financial conflicts, personal biases, or even emotions. If people realize that they're all humans with flaws just like the rest of us, people might stop and think instead of blindly accepting their conclusions as Truth.

* Except for the professors, scientists, and researchers funded by those other guys, they're malicious, biased liars trying to destroy the world.

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

#50

Post by rhodysurf »

__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.

This is exactly what S&T contracts from the DOD are like. Technically there are no deliverables, but if they dont like your work thy arent coming back to you.
Post reply on HN