Why New Scientific Fields Need Branding
Joe Brewer

I find branding a dirty word — it’s a calculated effort to deceive, frankly. Now, it doesn’t have to be that, but that’s what it turns into. It’s precisely what politicians do, they “brand” themselves by making sure every statement ever given is scrubbed so hard that it’s no longer genuine in any possible way.

I would hate for science and progress to go through anything similar. What needs to get through will get through, most of the technological progress and creations are entirely pointless and have no real positive use (often even the ones that do become widely popular).

The reason being is that the one who can deceive tends to win the branding game. The best marketers, who I frankly have very little respect for, are the ones who can popularize products…it’s not the best products that always make it, by any means. So what you will end up finding is that some of the worst products make a big name for themselves simply through deception, and some of the best will just fall away because they can’t figure out how to capitalize on their “branding” efforts — it’s beyond stupid frankly.

Tech has already gone down that route, I don’t want to see science do the same.

A single golf clap? Or a long standing ovation?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.