• Cephalotrocity@biglemmowski.win
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 day ago

    I’m arguing that the solution to your concern is that the corporation and profit aspects be removed. The reason I prefer this angle is because science emphasizes the need to remove all or as much bias as possible and economic incentives inevitably induce bias’ and restrictions that increase the problems I’ve already pointed out earlier.

    The question of whether peer reviewers ought to be paid and how is a complex one that has many ethical considerations on either side of the argument. I strongly recommend you research this debate yourself if you are interested in the subject.

    • rockSlayer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      I agree that ultimately, science and profit do not mix in any capacity and the money aspect must be done away with. I do have some knowledge of the debate as a labor activist, but not nearly as much as I’d like. However, until there is an shift to economic socialism on an international scale, anyone doing science is performing labor that will produce an incentive to extract profit from these workers. Ideals and ethics are important considerations for science, but the class dynamic cannot be ignored and must be addressed for an equitable solution to emerge.