In the corporate world, just like government funded research, science is only science if it aligns with the desires of its funding source unfortunately.
Many people here on HN have, for example, an irrational hatred and distrust of Microsoft. Microsoft Research, however is one of the biggest sources of computer science research funding in the world. If MSR funds you, they expect your work to result in publications and the primary factor in whether you get additional funding is whether your papers impact your field. Those characteristics make MSR funding highly desirable, precisely because it comes with no strings attached.
Perhaps. Many people here on HN also have an entirely rational hatred and distrust of Microsoft. Some of those people are also capable of appreciating their support for research.
I am standing right here, you dont have to point.
In other words, "validate our political rhetoric with a smile, or lose your funding." It skews academic research, and these incentives exist practically everywhere.
We live in a time when there are strong anti-intellectual threads and forces among some parts of the media. It's easy to cast aspersions against researchers. The fact that you've heard someone in the media say these things doesn't make the aspersions true.
The fact that you've heard someone in the media say these things doesn't make the aspersions true.
A lot of it is hush-hush, mired in layers of obfuscation, but one of the better places to start is by looking into the funding of the University of Chicago's "Crime Lab" in connection with the Chicago Police Department's SDSC program.
https://news.uchicago.edu/story/10-million-grant-will-suppor...
Leaked documents between the Chicago Mayor's office and executive staff at University of Chicago is a great resource as well.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20639065-re_-quiet-t...
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20651206-re_-fundrai...
Do a search for "uchicago.org" here: https://www.documentcloud.org/app?q=%2Bproject%3Aemails-2028...
And have a look at how often Chicago's worked directly with the Uchicago over the past 15 years: https://observablehq.com/d/22a60bb00bade634
The funding organization that threatened to cut funding of a program after tweets were made can't be shared because they were deleted after they were bullied by their funders.
I'm aware of many academics who work with city governments, including at least one researcher not from Chicago who works closely with the city of Chicago. He does so precisely because there are big problems there. The city of Chicago may even contribute to the funding of the work he does (it's helpful for the city to have skin in the game), but they certainly don't provide the lion's share of the funding and if the city were uncooperative he'd simply shift his work to another urban area. He's not going to waste his time and career as some sort of controlled victim of an evil governmental moneybags, particularly when he's the one bringing funding to the projects.
Happy to continue reading docs, but thus far I'm not seeing the conspiracy.
I recommend checking out Robert Vargas on twitter. He's a tenured professor at University of Chicago who's written a lot about this subject. https://twitter.com/robvargas21
This post describes a lot of the problems well: https://crimethoughts.com/year/04/24/readi-chicago-and-incon...
Among the first tweets in the twitter stream you provided is a University of Chicago researcher actively criticizing the actions of the Chicago PD. That doesn't seem to support your narrative that the U of C research is corrupt and in the pocket of city government. I certainly can believe research is being poorly and inaccurately reported in the press, but again I think if you want to affect change you'll be more effective if you focus your efforts on the reporting press who seem by your own description to be the ones at fault.
If you have that much money that you can fund lots of studies, the only ones that will proceed are the ones in support of whatever-it-is.
If you are in academic science doing publicly funded academic research, as most academics do, then yes, your funding agency does want you to get the results published, period. The conspiracy theories you've been led to believe are just that, conspiracy theories, not the objective realities of those doing the work.
Researchers know the ideas that one better doesn't question if one cares about job security. Or put in a more positive way: You better look into -current list of hype topics- if you want to continue getting funded, being cited and staying relevant. The problem with "academic science" as you call it is that it's mostly academic and not enough science.
In academia: Yes. The number of grants that require pre-publishing approval from funding agency is extremely tiny. I never encountered one while in academia.
Sorta off topic tip: if you are writing government grants and are in a position to become a reader, then do so. It gives you an idea how they thinks, tells you what words / wording will get your grant down-voted, and it gives you some good contacts. Had relatives do that, but went a different career direction.