Hacker News Reader

Comment by anigbrowl | Hacker News Reader

I have the impression when we read stories like this that it's not that the leading researchers in the field are hostile to other ideas, as such, but that they are not very well versed in economics and thus think that scarce research funding should flow their way because giving any to other possibly-wrong approaches would be wasteful, and likewise abandoning or discounting the predominant theory would be a terrible mistake because of all the money that has already gone into it (a sunk cost fallacy). Over and over we see that expertise in one field - even a very rigorous scientific one - doesn't immunize one from fallacious thinking in other contexts.

View on HN

think that scarce research funding should flow their way because giving any to other possibly-wrong approaches would be wasteful

I heard someone recently tell me how using science to form views on topics (social/psychology/etc) is dangerous, because science is really about funding. AND large donors/entities who can fund science often pick science research projects that sound cool and sexy. They may not be pushing any agenda but do lean toward funding trendy ideas.

So really, science is often biased because of who hold the checkbooks. That really made me think.

Science is funded:

1. by desire for profit

2. by desire for political gain

3. by charitable impulses by people with money to spare

Each has its problems and advantages. Best if we allow all three.

Does creating weapons of mass destruction count for profit, political gain, both or something else?

Both, probably.

Generally speaking, government funded research is allocated for political gain. For example, defense R+D projects are famously (infamously?) allocated to the districts of Congressmen whose votes are needed.

Which of these categories does the National Science Foundation fall under?

#2, as it is funded by politicians.

Politicians don't make decisions about which researchers get grants and which don't.

They make decisions about what money is available in the first place, and appoint the leaders of the organization that runs the grant selection process.

No one is campaigning on NSF research. The director is appointed, but most of the staff are career workers who aren't replaced when the President or Senate change.

One can be wary of big money projects while trusting the larger trends, critical reasoning and method itself.

I also wonder if it is a victim of the just-one-more-try problem you see in big code projects: you get funded for a year or more and the lead researcher honestly thinks he is - almost there - if only for that one more try. This means all resources are diverted, and only really late in the game you have to admit you were wrong, which gets harder and harder to do.

What definition of “science” is this?

Reads like "science = titles of approved funding applications". One would hope people don't form opinions based on that (outside of how the funding system work).

> AND large donors/entities who can fund science often pick science research projects that sound cool and sexy. They may not be pushing any agenda but do lean toward funding trendy ideas.

As well as those who do the science. You want tenure, you better not be too far off the beaten path.

The biggest "scandal" at this level was the "cellular immunology" folks who based entire edifices around "recognition of non-self". And then DNA sequencing came along and completely smashed that. However, those professors were still tenured.

> sunk cost fallacy

...doesn't really make sense here.

Let's say it takes 20 years and 5+ institutions to fully explore a single avenue of research.

If you're 15 years into that research and you think there is a chance that you'll reach a breakthrough in 5 years, you're much more inclined to want your (and the other 4+ institutions) to pursue it for 5 more years rather than starting over.

That's not sunk-cost fallacy. It's more like "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" or perhaps confirmation bias (the inertia the scientists felt to discard their conclusions about the causes and treatment pathways for Alz).

"If you're 15 years into that research and you think there is a chance that you'll reach a breakthrough in 5 years, you're much more inclined to want...to pursue it for 5 more years rather than starting over."

How is that not sunk-cost fallacy?

An example of what I'm describing is:

Decision A: 5 years (after 15 already spent) = 75% chance of success

Decision B: 20 years (after 0 already spent) = 10% chance of success

In that scenario, Decision A (sticking with your current research) is more rational as long as your estimate of your chance of success is accurate. We know from the article that this is not true -- their estimates were wrong.

The sunk-cost fallacy would apply for something like:

Decision A: 20 years (after 15 already spent) = 10% chance of success

Decision B: 20 years (after 0 already spent) = 10% chance of success

Since both A and B have the same cost and same likelihood of success, you should not consider the time you've already spent. Most humans would, though.

I would say that this is an example of the planning fallacy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com