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

91–98 of 98 posts

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

#91

Post by tryitnow »

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…

This is pretty standard practice for all companies, isn't it?

I mean would we be surprised if an oil company or tobacco company were doing this?

I think the problem here is Google's attempt to position themselves as being one of the "good" companies. They tried to have their cake and eat it too.

Frankly, I've been skeptical of Google for a few years now, not because I think they're inherently evil, but because any large, powerful institution is going to be blind to the ways its interest conflicts with the public's interest.

So in a way, I would defend Google here. They're simply doing what any organization does - defend its own interests. The problem is that the rest of us have not been sufficiently skeptical and critical of Google. We've been too wowed by Google's supposed technological wizardry.

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

#92

Post by amoorthy »

ucaetano wrote: post #37
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...

Well, that is the alternative? Forbidding privately-funded research? Submitting it to gigantic bureaucratic committees? The only proposal I back is forcing publicly-funded researchers to disclose all gifts and grants, similarly to public officials, but even that is a massive bureaucratic ordeal. Research is not a regulated environment, and it should not be one.

I think the suggestion is simple: Disclose funding sources and % of funding total for any research. And if you don't disclose then no journal should accept your paper.

Funding source does not by itself invalidate findings and corporations absolutely should continue to fund research. But for readers of research this is critical information.

I may be naive but this does not seem like a big bureaucratic ask. And even if it were seems like good scientists would do it because they pride themselves on pursuing the truth with impeccable attention to detail.

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

#93

Post by carapace »

valas wrote: post #65
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,…

Google's response: https://www.blog.google/topics/public-policy/responding-camp...

Thank you for posting the link! It has some choice information:

> The irony of discussing disclosures and transparency with the “Campaign for Accountability” is that this group consistently refuses to name its corporate funders. And those backers won’t ‘fess up either. The one funder the world does know about is Oracle, which is running a well-documented lobbying campaign against us. In its own name and through proxies, Oracle has funded many hundreds of articles, research papers, symposia and reports.

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

#94

Post by ucaetano »

amoorthy wrote: post #92
ucaetano wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, that is the alternative? Forbidding privately-funded research? Submitting it to gigantic bureaucratic committees? The only proposal I back is forcing publicly-funded researchers to disclose all gifts and grants, similarly to public officials, but even that is a massive bureaucratic ordeal. Research is not a regulated environment, and it should not be one.

I think the suggestion is simple: Disclose funding sources and % of funding total for any research. And if you don't disclose then no journal should accept your paper. Funding source does not by itself invalidate findings and corporations absolutely should continue to fund research. But for readers of research this is critical information. I may be naive but this does not seem like a big bureaucratic ask. And even if…

That is a fair suggestion, but the devil is in the details: how do you implement that?

How do you prevent journals from accepting? How do you force researchers to disclose?

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

#95

Post by bachmeier »

Fomite wrote: post #55
bachmeier wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Un…

My point is that universities have to choose. Grant money is either revenue or it's a way to cover the expense of doing research. It's hard for someone outside a university to understand how the system works.

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

#96

Post by Fomite »

bachmeier wrote: post #95
Fomite wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Un…

My point is that universities have to choose. Grant money is either revenue or it's a way to cover the expense of doing research. It's hard for someone outside a university to understand how the system works.

Universities literally aren't allowed to mix direct and indirect funds for the primary source of their research money - the Federal government.

And Google is full of academics, funding academics, and being very careful about making clear these things are "gifts". They know full well how the system works.

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

#97

Post by amoorthy »

ucaetano wrote: post #94
amoorthy wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the suggestion is simple: Disclose funding sources and % of funding total for any research. And if you don't disclose then no journal should accept your paper. Funding source does not by itself invalidate findings and corporations absolutely should continue to fund research. But for readers of research this is critical information. I may be naive but this does not seem like a big bureaucratic ask. And even if…

That is a fair suggestion, but the devil is in the details: how do you implement that? How do you prevent journals from accepting? How do you force researchers to disclose?

Journals that accept papers that don't disclose funding sources progressively lose their credibility.

(I am not a scientist and have never published a paper so I may be asking for things here that are unreasonable but they seem plausible and useful to me).

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

#98

Post by ucaetano »

blub wrote: post #72
ucaetano wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>They should be scrutinised.

I'm sure they should.

http://www.chronicle.com/article/Scholars-Cry-Foul-at-Their/...

Sarah T. Roberts said she doesn’t understand why she was on the list.

Sure, she told The Chronicle, she was a Google fellow in 2009, but that meant a $7,000 award to cover her expenses during a 10-week stint working in Washington, D.C., for the American Library Association.

Why that 2009 fellowship would be relevant to a 2015 paper on information privacy — in which Ms. Roberts, an assistant professor of information studies at the University of California at Los Angeles, was listed as the fourth author — is not clear to her. More important, she said, she didn’t receive any money from the technology giant in connection to that paper. And if the advocacy group’s concern was that she had benefited from Google in the past, that information is on her curriculum vitae.

"What else would they like me to do?" she asked. "I think it’s pretty irresponsible."

Post reply on HN