Paying For Uni

[Solly]

I think you need to be a bit more trusting of big companies, Mike.

[Drogue]

I agree with Mike. The company is paying, therefore the company dictates a lot. Many times I've heard of research being done not to try to find the best solution to a problem, but to ratify with evidence the solution that that company wishes to use. I think the sponsors have a lot more say than they should, and direct more than they should, however I think in most cases the benefit of the money flowing into universities is more of a benefit to society than the damage of misleading information. Besides, is there a better way?

[Starchild]

Science deals with Truth. Companies with Profit. The two may be occassional bedfellows, sharing brief titilating flings but they are not long term partners. Science has no long term partners, it goes to whatever serves its interests best. Science and Religion used to get along fine and dandy, when the spiritual and material truth were one in the same. When the two diverged, a schism was created that still hasn't healed between the two.

[MikeH]

Trust big companies more.

Next thing you'll be asking me to trust governments!!!

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Boddington's
I think you need to be a bit more trusting of big companies, Mike.

Mike is right. You are trolling. If not, you are extraordinarily naive.

[Drogue]

Or (possibly worse) he believes it to be true. You'd be amazed how many people believe things that have much evidence against them, yet still cling to their belief. I'm sure some company has sponsored some research to show that sponsors have no say in the results

[Provost Harrison]

I wonder how a university with sponsorships from the oil industry would direct it's research into alternative energy sources for vehicles?

[Agathon]

Boddington's needs to spend less time in the pub drinking pints of his namesake and to actually go to a university.

Full private funding of university scientific research would be a disaster. Private funding works well when the goals and risks of research are clear - it simply isn't a good business risk to fund the kind of highly theoretical research that is supposed to go on in universities nor would it be desirable for anyone to "own" the results. Nor is it efficient to publicly fund more practical research - that is why we have a mixed system - overall it is the most efficient way of organising scientific research. The only people who don't seem to have noticed this are right wing nutters like you.

[molly bloom]

Sugar companies funding research into showing just how nutritious and healthy refined white sugar is, and how beneficial to our health. McDonald's funding research into how vital, tasty and healthy saturated fat in fast food is. British Nuclear Fuels funding research into just how bad alternative sources of energy such as wind and wave power are, and how wonderful radioactive waste is.

Oh wait, haven't all those happened already?




We love you, Big Company.

[MikeH]

Oh and just thought of this great one based on Boddie's claimed views on passive smoking.

The tobacco companies sponsoring all that research showing that tobacco is totally non addictive and harmless.

[Solly]

Originally posted by Starchild
Science deals with Truth. Companies with Profit. The two may be occassional bedfellows, sharing brief titilating flings but they are not long term partners. Science has no long term partners, it goes to whatever serves its interests best. Science and Religion used to get along fine and dandy, when the spiritual and material truth were one in the same. When the two diverged, a schism was created that still hasn't healed between the two.

And who best to know what those interests are than companies?

[Starchild]

Err, the scientists? The people who are doing science for the sheer joy of doing science and not short term profit?

[Solly]

That is laughable Starchild. Scientists are just academics who haven't spent any time in the real world, and learning what people want.

What better way to deliver what people want than when there is an incentive to find what it is they do actually want.

[Seeker]

boobie

[MikeH]

Boddies doesn't know anything about science does he.

If you don't research pure science you don't know what's possible, if people don't know whether something's possible how do they know if they want it or not? OK so some things are just developments of concepts we already know about. That's what R&D and company research budgets are for. Fair play to them, we really need that. You don't want to turn pure science research into a large R&D department though, research would stagnate.