Hacker News Reader

Comment by dba7dba | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

> 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.

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.

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).

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com