Silicon Valley’s New Obsession | Hacker News Reader

Silicon Valley’s New Obsession

theatlantic.com

22 pointsotoolep9 comments

Sorry, call me a skeptic, but keep in mind that academia's incentive is knowledge creation, not products - investors will most likely see no returns, this is why it is publicly funded, to escape the ulterior motives of industry. Look at privately funded research for proof: sugar vs. fat, Monsanto papers, tobacco, etc.

No peer review? Science is not as easy to break in as with coding, becoming an expert is much harder than just a bootcamp or a kid who programmed from a young age. The hubris and duplicity of the rich: Theranos...

Scientific research has never been an easy endeavor: to dedicate oneself for the sheer desire to further human knowledge and benefit the common good.

Unless Silicon Valley is really willing to sacrifice for the public good without expectation for returns, and not pretend to care with the "change the world" mantra while lining their pockets, this effort might just be another marketing stunt. Hint: crypto investors gives you an incentives preview

Will appreciate hearing from insiders. A scientist is always healthily skeptical.

Life sciences do need a shakeup. This is a feeling shared by many of us in the field who have to deal with the frustration of grants, publishing, and the politics involved in climbing corporate/academic ladders.

But we also have a litany of reasons to be skeptical of private interests like those of Silicon Valley where profit is undoubtedly prioritized over silly little trivialities like safety, public health, and actually improving the lives of people.

Let's also not normalize biohacking. The article isn't even about biohacking, but it still needs to be said.

I like to think that some point I would be so rich that the returns weren’t a meaningful reason for me. The old money donated just to get their name on a building. Saying you are funding science, “I’ve got a lab working on that”, may be all they need. It feels pretty cool to me, success or not.

Not suggesting anything, but just curious, will it change your mind if it was funded by "blood money"?

Thanks for asking. I don’t personally care. Anything the billionaires deign to give away is a win. I hate people chastising McKenzie Scott for giving away billions of Amazon money but not giving it to workers rights orgs. Literally any giving should be encouraged, although more so giving with no strings attached. How it’s made is a separate issue for me.

Additional resource: watch "The Bleeding Edge" on Netflix https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8106576/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0

Sign me up!* I have been waiting for this to happen, the resurgence to science funded by nobility. The incentive structure of science has been misaligned for at least two decades, yet it historically had provided the foundation for wealth and progress. This discrepancy should provide enough “arbitrage” for such arrangements as the article mentions.

* Physics rather than biology, but still.

One of my best friends is a grad student. It is absolutely crazy how much time he (and I, as his editor) spend trying to chase little bits of money. If there were a reliable way for me to turn hours into dollars (and not pay a high marginal tax rate), we would be ahead with me just regularly working instead of helping write many of these things.

This is inspiring and might end up helping people around the globe. Much better than spending billions on trivial smartphone apps.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com