Academics gets on Google's payroll
The Google Transparency Project, an arm of an
organisation called the Campaign for Accountability, released a study
this month claiming that Google funnelled money to hundreds of academic
research projects related to antitrust, intellectual property and other
legal policy issues important to the company's bottom line.
The study comes at a time of justified public
anxiety about the outsized power and influence of tech titans such as
Google, Facebook and Amazon. Google overwhelmingly dominates the global
market for online searches. Along with Facebook, it controls almost half
of the world's digital advertising market. Its Android operating system
powers about 80% of the world's smartphones. And its YouTube
video-sharing platform boasts 1.5 billion monthly users.
Given Google's size and power, it may be tempting to reflexively credit the
Google Transparency Project's allegation that the company has paid off a
small army of academic researchers. The project has identified some
troubling examples of undisclosed Google funding; however, its broader
claim of a vast network of bought-and-sold academic researchers deserves
careful scrutiny
In an environment in which academics
already are seen by many as biased, the Google Transparency Project's
claims further undercut public confidence in academic expertise. If
academic research is secretly funded and directed by large corporate
interests – and Google is among the largest – why should the public and
policy makers trust it?
Corporate funding alone does not mean that research is unreliable. As federal and state dollars available for research continue to decrease, more research is likely to be funded directly or indirectly by corporations, foundations and other private sources. When specific research projects rely on such funding, that relationship should, of course, be disclosed. But, regardless of whether research is privately funded, its results should be evaluated on the merits.
Judged on these two criteria – disclosure and merit – the Google Transparency Project's study fails miserably.
Corporate funding alone does not mean that research is unreliable. As federal and state dollars available for research continue to decrease, more research is likely to be funded directly or indirectly by corporations, foundations and other private sources. When specific research projects rely on such funding, that relationship should, of course, be disclosed. But, regardless of whether research is privately funded, its results should be evaluated on the merits.
Judged on these two criteria – disclosure and merit – the Google Transparency Project's study fails miserably.
For a project committed to transparency,
this one is evasive about the sources of its funding. The organisation
has yet to tell the US Internal Revenue Service where its money comes
from, and its executive director has refused to answer repeated
inquiries from journalists about who pays the Campaign for
Accountability's bills.
To date, only one project funder has come forward. That benefactor, Oracle, is currently locked in a billion-dollar copyright fight over its Java programming language. Oracle's opponent in that years-long legal battle? Google.
To date, only one project funder has come forward. That benefactor, Oracle, is currently locked in a billion-dollar copyright fight over its Java programming language. Oracle's opponent in that years-long legal battle? Google.
Comments
Post a Comment