Whether it comes to Brussels or not, you'd have pay me a hefty sum of money if you want me to go there!
I think Hatsune Miku is a fun concept but a) I don't like any crowded event; b) I won't raise the finger for anything related to a hologram. Except dancing like crazy with a leek, obviously.
I would say Hatsune Miku is as much an entity as Elmo from Sesame Street. I wanted to put Cthulhu in the same category but I wouldn't want to offend an Elder God if I'm wrong about that.
I lived in Paris for 12 years and taking the metro or the "RER" at rush hour was even worse than this picture. About the same, but everything is dirt, people are grumpy, and you have just as many people remaining on the side waiting for the next overcrowded train.
97% of scientists agree with whoever funds them? Couldn't be more false.
Let's take me as an example. I'm funded by Ghent University. Probably no one there has a correct clue regarding what I'm doing, so what would it mean for me to agree with them, on the scientific level? On the political, managerial aspects of things maybe, but then I don't "agree", I just passively comply because I won't risk my job to criticize this or that stance.
Scientists produce papers. This is the first and foremost output of their research activity. Papers are offered to journals and assessed by their peers. So if a scientist wants to promote a certain narrative or a certain result, this result has to be accepted as valid by the community - and believe me the community is pretty harsh in this respect.
This particular outcome (a scientist agreeing with their sponsors) could happen in more subtle ways: for instance, if you are working in Emory University in Atlanta, the pharmaceutic department (if this exists) is probably funded by Coca-Cola so this may orient their research: they would, for instance, research the benefits of caffeine on focus and work productivity, rather than the long-term damage caused by sugar on the organism. The sponsor orients the research, but a situation where a sponsor would prompt scientists to research something to misleadingly debunk it is more complicated to happen.
It happens when private researchers are mandated by their company (or outright giving money of they are external to it) to produce misleading research material to promote certain conclusions that are, otherwise, false (for instance, on pesticides). This happens a lot I think, but it is no longer different than: a) bribery being efficient on human beings and b) employees being forced to do whatever they are asked to do. I would say that both happen in research, but maybe less so in research than elsewhere.
Yikes, the RER sounds a bit unpleasant. Thanks for the "insider" view of scientific funding. The 97% sounded a bit high to me, but my cynical nature and belief that it's usually about the money said, "Well, it doesn't sound that far-fetched, but Z will know."
I think I can add three simple points on that topic:
If scientists were just people pushing the narrative of their sponsors, they would not struggle that much to get funded in the first place.
If scientists were just here to agree with their sponsors, they would basically be no better than another brand of marketing - and believe me, scientists are very bad at marketing their ideas. As anyone can tell I guess.
Last bit, since "scientists" exist, it means that there is the implicit (albeit often challenged) recognition that they bring some valuable piece to the discussion. I think science obeys such complex community rules and policies (again, all scientific papers are scrutinized by their peers, and they are not all funded by the same sponsors), that it's actually the best starting point to build consensus in a society.
Whether it comes to Brussels or not, you'd have pay me a hefty sum of money if you want me to go there!
I think Hatsune Miku is a fun concept but a) I don't like any crowded event; b) I won't raise the finger for anything related to a hologram. Except dancing like crazy with a leek, obviously.