My statement was a hypothetical response to a poster’s question of what could possibly cause a respected scientist to get sucked in by something that was questionable;
***Then you have discovered where your parallel does not break down. Steven Chu got drawn into the Solyndra thing because the scientific results were significant. So did Kullander.
I beg to differ. Solyndra only made sense if the economics worked (i.e., funny-shaped PV cells which made the panels' output less sensitive to positioning relative to the sun; this required a business plan which was economically based and took into account production costs and potential competition). I think Chu was lacking in his ability to evaluate the economics, and influenced by the belief and hope in all that was "green." Hence he was easily manipulated and misled by being presented a biased sample of research options--those associated primarily with Obama cronies.
I have a strong opinion on Chu, but I don't have one at all on Kullander. Hence, your rather lecturing comment to me that "I have discovered" something about my parallel, apparently elicited by your Socratic dialog with me isn't called for.