Science, Academia, and Capitalism - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Questions and research help requests. Student surveys may be posted here.
#14338409
It is well known that at many world class universities especially in the United States major corporations work with universities by paying for lab equipment, facilities, etc and get in exchange top graduate students to work on r&d for the corporation, etc. In my opinion this constrains scientific inquiry, because it constrains free inquiry into lines of exploration that would otherwise be pursued in favor of that which is most economically profitable for the respective corporations involved. This has moved science from a paradigm of exploration of phenomena that is unexplained to one of utilization of resources for organizations (whether they be political or economic) in an efficient and profitable manner (or at least that is the supposed stated intention). So what do you think, do partnerships between business and science curtail scientific inquiry? I believe capitalist pressure reduced the number of resources for the arts and humanities because they were seen as economically useless though I believe they provide something valuable to the society that we have lost and now there is similar pressure on the sciences which are seen as more "useless" economically. Eg. (psychology & philosophy [personally I have little penchant for these, but for those of you who value them I am sure you have noticed the pattern as well], theoretical physics {those with less than top marks are simply transferred to wall street or the department of defense}, biology, anthropology, and I am sure a host of others that escape my mind at this moment). Ironically enough, the conservative narrative in the US is that there is a "liberal scheme" in control of academia that influences society to reject the conservative worldview when in my opinion since the rise of corporatism especially post-1980s science has become a subsidiary or lapdog to corporate interests because students know that in order to get the top research positions and funding they must tailor their research to solving problems that are economically valuable to corporate interests. Top researchers are looking to patent something so that they can create their own startup or get royalties from the manufacture of something they have done research on.
#14450800
In my opinion this constrains scientific inquiry, because it constrains free inquiry into lines of exploration that would otherwise be pursued in favor of that which is most economically profitable for the respective corporations involved.


The way I see it is that the universities need money because they have a goal of increasing enrollments year over year and costs go up with enrollment numbers. The states and federal government grants do not go far enough to cover all of the enrollment costs. This pushes tuition and housing prices up, administrative costs, and arguably, professors and researchers are perceived to get more expensive since they are doing more with stagnant resource pools.

Accepting money from corporations (donations, I'm sure) and a students preference for post academia employment are both incentives to mingle interests with corporations. I agree that this stifles creativity, but it also pushes money into STEM at the cost of humanities, arts, and social sciences. Administrators run universities like businesses today. There are all kinds of problems within universities with grad student pay, shrinking tenure track jobs, student debt, tuition/housing costs, etc. that need to be dealt with as they are all symptoms of the problem of finding ways to fund objective non-oriented research goals.

The solution, unfortunately, is to shrink the size of universities; decrease enrollment; something that no one is going to support politically. If the enrollment numbers did not saturate the university and then the market with degrees there would be less underemployment of people with degrees and general school costs would be lower. It would also mean that the federal and state money can go further, as well as the private endowments (even though those are also sometimes politically biased) can allow people to conduct research and get money to research based on their own merit and creativity.
#14500228
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... e-journal/

This is the sort of thing I am talking about. Science becoming enmeshed into the capitalist framework to the extent that it compromises scientific integrity. I wonder if in the future data mining will be able to tell us who was plagiarizing who in the past in the same way that we can use machine learning to find artistic influence or analysis of headcam movements to track who was filming a particular video so we can find those similar to watson and crick screwed over their female assistant and attribute scientific discovery to the correct persons
#14500237
Ummon wrote:I believe capitalist pressure reduced the number of resources for the arts and humanities because they were seen as economically useless

It is not because of capitalist pressures if tax payers do not see more value into those and refuse to sign blank checks (i.e. : give a larger fraction of their work to humanities' and arts' researchers). I do have the impression that this is close to the electors' choice (actually they may choose to give even less funds), so you have to choose whether you prefer a democracy or an oligarchy that would favor academics more.

In my opinion this constrains scientific inquiry, because it constrains free inquiry into lines of exploration that would otherwise be pursued in favor of that which is most economically profitable for the respective corporations involved. This has moved science from a paradigm of exploration of phenomena that is unexplained to one of utilization of resources for organizations (whether they be political or economic) in an efficient and profitable manner (or at least that is the supposed stated intention).

This assumes that the govt would have granted higher funds without the corporations, I think this is highly unlikely. It is more likely that corporations' funding was added to the rest.

Following this logic, funding dedicated to other topics increased because :
a) Scale efficiency: once you bought an equipment for corporate-funded researches, this equipment is now available to other researches.
a) The society is wealthier and more productive, and fundamental research benefit from this.
#14502451
The discussion is too much centered around your US background from my point of view.

First of all there is a difference between basic and applied sciences besides the educational part. The latter one desperately need industrial competence and vice versa. Please note that this includes disciplines you branded as "economically useless". Let me for example elaborate on psychology based on my expertise in that field, but you can of course choose biology, philosophy etc. (it all depends of your specialization within the field).

So lets take a look into psychology: in behavioral finance, big data, neuro science, neuro marketing, behavioral marketing, neuro-prothetics, organizational development, organisational analysis etc. you are going to find psychologists in all those fields and you are going to find cross business-scientific exchanges. Just don't forget that the clinical part is only one part of psychology. Even that (look at the APA scandal) has quite an impact. Just look who consulted the CIA for their "torture 101".

However, back to the initial question. There are vast institutions (mainly public) devoted to basic research and vast institutions devoted to applied research. Both are important and both have to be tuned according to the overall targets of the society. Speaking from an economic point of view it is a question of the investment horizon and the expected interest rates. Looking at the US you are going to find a very short investment horizon (culturally and economical) while in other countries it is just the other way around. Hence the US-centric approach is a little bit problematic. To make it more complex people who study certain degrees have different motivations and show different patterns in terms of their investment horizon and the desired "interest rates" for their efforts. Hence the disciplines have to be treated differently again in that regard.

To simply the matter take for example an English Major. Why do you study it and do you think you can make a living out of it? Could you reach this goal without doing the English Major? Now compare that with obtaining a law dregree with the same questions. Add to that the simple fact that the program itself is going to alter your perspective and form you towards a certain kind of information processing and thereby altering your point of view.

I would prefer to keep the ideology of "capitalism" out of it, because it is first and foremost the question of the scientist what he wants to achieve. I reccommend The Physicists from Dürrenmatt, F. on that topic. I am not familiar with the English translations though.
#14524079
I could play the Aristophanes to your Aristotle, but I wouldn't want to interrupt your navel gazing. Besides, I don't feel like interrupting the fantasies of someone who thinks resources consumed for pursuing scientific inquiry magically fall from the sky like the mana from heaven for the children of Israel. How dare anyone assert any degree of accountability from university students towards their benefactors! Personal responsibility is evil!
#14524209
I worked under just such circumstances.

At any time,we were the recipients of two or three contracts. The amount of time spent doing corporate funded studies mvaried, but I imagine it averaged half a working group day,

The cash from the largest contract ran the lab, from purchasing equipment to wages. The rest was gravy and, together with government funding, allowed for research into areas of personal interest. The corps came to us because our focus was similar to theirs. Doing the corpus studies allowed us insight Into areas we may otherwise have not explored

Without the Corp funding, the taxpayer was on the hook, and in tough economic in times our budget would have been slashed to the bone.
#14679565
mikema63 wrote:There are government grants as well.

I persoanally feel like our entire society undervalues investment into science.

I quite agree that's the case for some countries.
I'm from UK, an electrical engineer which is an applied science. Quite often, if I tell someone that here, they either think I fix coffee vending machines or dishwashers or more likely have no idea at all what it involves or the level of qualifications and study

It seems to have less Kudos than a theatrical agent or a games show host........
That saddens me, not on my account since I'm retired, but because it doesn't attract new blood into the profession
#14679588
I'm from UK, an electrical engineer which is an applied science. Quite often, if I tell someone that here, they either think I fix coffee vending machines or dishwashers or more likely have no idea at all what it involves or the level of qualifications and study

All engineers have that problem in Britain, Besoeker. It's a class thing. The word 'engineer' conjures up a mental image in most people's minds of grease-stained overalls and adjustable wrenches. I mean, you're virtually working class. The fact that you have a university degree and extensive training merely means that you're a clever prole, that's all.
#14679766
Engineer is a dubious term in the US. It can mean anything, really. It can mean a person that simply repairs vending machines, or it can mean someone that does design of sophisticated technologies. It can also mean someone that drives a train.

That's why when i hear people say "I'm an engineer" I don't think much of it until I get details.
Last edited by Rancid on 15 May 2016 05:48, edited 1 time in total.
#14679784
You're the engineer of your life and the architect of your world. - What a wonderful marketing slogan.

Being true, I have put on my resume that I too am an engineer and an architect. They don't usually check to actually see if I graduated from the university in the engineering or architectural department.

EU is not prepared on nuclear war, but Russia,[…]

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]