Of course, the wisdom of taking the person risk is a continuum. In some cases it is and in some it isn't. But.. To omit the ethical angle entirely seems like a bad take.
Getting personally attached and emotionally invested in work you get paid for is a risk too. There's nothing wrong with that. But there's also nothing wrong putting your time in and churning out requirements if that's what you want.
not to say that there aren't experiments worth running. but in my experience (and in the example in the OP's article), the experiment often isn't even worth running. Intelligent people knew from the jump that it was a bad idea. No experiment necessary. Just pointless waste, enabled by hubris and apathy.
My point is that, from the viewpoint of an external observer: we want people doing prosocial work if it's possible, so if there's counterfactuals where they do or don't, we'd rather they do. And the point of taking moral stances on stuff is to press for the attitudes and behaviors that lead to a world that maximize's everyone's safety and happiness and prosperity and whatnot. Therefore it is moral, at some level: a world where the company wastes money on dumb stuff is worse than a world where the company channels that money into value for humanity.
It has nothing to do with the individual's preferences, and I don't begrudge them their preferences either way. My point is that when we're evaluating "letting projects fail" as a policy, the moral angle needs to be part of the conversation, because it does have moral implications. Convincing yourself that it does not is a moral choice: it amounts to saying that you do not feel responsible for those implications in the slightest. That doesn't mean you should turn around and be fully responsible for them, either. As with anything there is a lot to weigh. But completely writing it off seems wrong.
Is it? We live in a world in which social safety nets are eroding; an economically-divided one in which the middle class is rapidly disappearing.
These things (e.g. bullshit projects/jobs) are a form of "white collar welfare", no?
That's not bad. It's not like we're actually going to fix the underlying problem.
Perhaps another bored patent clerk will use his downtime to change the world.
Depending on scale, a couple large train wrecks may take the company out and leave you unemployed.
Employment is a business transaction not a transaction based on ethics viewpoints
Generally, it's not what you sing, it's how you sing it.
(also that of a "non-ethical" person, like an animal or a person with no agency in the matter, if you want to make the distinction. I'm not sure we should but I guess it's an interesting question)