Part of the issue might be that those who choose the more moral course don't get the large government grants and military funding, which means that they don't get well known, not because they aren't just as talented but because of lack of funds. So scientists of standing may self select for the kind of person who will do anything for money and fame. If society had more funding for principled causes, or celebrated those with them, we might see more scientists with standing (i.e. well-known) who also stuck to their principles.

i'm not sure why you think it's harder for someone "of his standing" to turn down opportunities. the marginal utility for him is much lower than for grad students that have to choose between RAships and TAships or fresh PhDs that have to choose between risky tenure track grinds and lucrative industry roles.

I don't think its hard. I just think they don't. I think it's really sad how few senior scientists with standing do this. They seem to lack the fortitude to do something, which isn't that hard when it comes down to it.

I don't blame fresh starts who go for the lucrative roles, they need the money. Once you're established, finding a hill to stand on and choosing to stand on it seems to get .. less likely?

You made the call, good for you. I admire that. I wish more people with established status did, and said so.

Am I missing something? is there a lot of news out there about CompSci and AI profs sticking it to the man (faang) about things? I don't see it, and thats what I'm responding to here. Norbert Weiner was apex in his field. He looked at what was going to happen with it, and decided to stop feeding the beast. Where's the equivalent behavour from his peer-set in todays world?

>CompSci and AI profs sticking it to the man (faang) about things

there are very frequently articles/gossip on quittings/firings of famous researchers. timnit gebru is a recent example.

>Norbert Weiner was apex in his field.

i wouldn't be so quick to lionize him - he was also not very kind to walter pitts and possibly contributed to his suicide

http://nautil.us/issue/21/information/the-man-who-tried-to-r...

> he was also not very kind to walter pitts and possibly contributed to his suicide

Wiener's wife told him a lie about Pitts. She invented an indecency involving Wiender's daugher. Both Wiener and Pitts never found out the truth about who ended their relationship.

And how do we know that it was a lie? Did she admit it later? If she did, what were the reasons to believe her recantation over her accusation? Did the daughter say it was a lie later in life?

All I know from the article is that Wiener, a very smart person, thought the accusation was credible enough at the time to completely cut off people who were very important to him personally and intellectually. I also know that those people accused were very heavy drinkers.

It's safer to say we don't know anything about the veracity of the claim unless the reference offered some sort of material alibi.