| It's foolish to think it's just about money and industry. I mean, yes, be very skeptical of publications that justify an outcome their funders' wanted. But why should that stop at industry? Should we be so naive as to think that all the other science funders and fundees up to and including NSF itself don't have their own "agendas", not necessarily aligned at all with figuring out what's true and what's not? Top of the agenda of all institutions is to survive, and second is to grow. In industry, that means making more money and making it more efficiently. In academia? Here our currency is "impact". In government? Here our currency is "power". "Impact" is really just another word for power. The desire for power, for relevance, and for status are just as potent, and just as corrupt when compared to what you might consider an "ideal science", one whose practitioners are motivated by something like "curiosity." How much has our Science been influenced from these directions? It's a disturbing question, right? I mean, can you even imagine that article? "How Scientists Weaponize Science to Create Self-Licking Ice Cream Cones and Serve Their Agenda (moar sinecures and grant money)". "How Bureaucracy Weaponizes Science and Sows Compliance to Serve Their Agenda (moar sinecures, bigger slice of the budget pie)". Seems crazy, right? But is it? A Minister of Truth is a bureaucrat with a bureaucrat's salary, and has no real interest in "profits" beyond holding onto his position and advancing in the ranks. Such an organization is basically outside the realm of the market and profit-motives, and yet, would you trust such a ministry to produce good science? If not, why not? Of course, we do not have an official ministry of truth, but if you adjust the telescope lens to bring into focus the constellation of universities, government agencies and other funding apparatus, it is rather difficult for me to distinguish what we do have from that one unified ministry. "They're the same picture." The org-chart is just more complicated. |
If what you're saying is that the same corrupting influences from industry act on governments, then that's obviously true. If you're saying that the corruption of government emanates from somewhere other than the interests of business (or rather, the owners of business), I'd almost accuse you of dualism.
Grants, budgets, and sinecures are also handed out by the owners of industry/finance using the tool of government. Following the money always leads to the same place.
edit: all we can do is attack corruption loudly and specifically when we see it, and trust nothing until we have to. The result of that is anti-vax and a return to flat-eartherism, but what can you expect from a system that prioritizes the desires of tiny elites over truth?