6 ms·

Another possible (unspoken) reason why Gariépy is resigning is presumably that he's been a postdoc[0] for the last 3-4 years[1]. Unfortunately, the nature of mo

Another possible (unspoken) reason why Gariépy is resigning is presumably that he's been a postdoc[0] for the last 3-4 years[1]. Unfortunately, the nature of modern biomedical research is such that you need an army of researchers to do the mechanical grunt work at the lab bench that leads to papers. This has led to a glut of postdocs, who are underpaid, overworked, and have little hope of ever obtaining a permanent academic position[2]. And even at top universities, industry positions are quite difficult to get without putting time and effort that you don't have to spare into extensive networking[3]. During his postdoc, Gariépy's had one second-author publication in Nature Neuroscience[4], which probably wasn't enough to get a tenure-track professorship. If, like the first author on that paper, he had gotten an assistant professorship at a prestigious university[5], he probably wouldn't be airing his dirty laundry. Also note that he is a YouTuber[6] and has a book coming out according to his Twitter profile[7], so he's probably trying to leverage any notoriety he gets from ragequitting his postdoc to jumpstart his career in science journalism. 0: http://today.duke.edu/node/132805 http://today.duke.edu/node/132805 1: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeanfrancoisgariepy https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeanfrancoisgariepy 2: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/10/04/glut-postdoc-researchers-stirs-quiet-crisis-science/HWxyErx9RNIW17khv0MWTN/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/10/04/glut-postdoc-re... 3: https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/09/02/cambridge-planners-take-kendall-fat-chunkies/k9SuETiCJSVj5UveEUEoLK/story.html https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2015/09/02/cambridge-pl... 4: http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v16/n2/abs/nn.3287.html http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v16/n2/abs/nn.3287.html 5: https://medicine.yale.edu/neuroscience/people/steve_chang.profile https://medicine.yale.edu/neuroscience/people/steve_chang.pr... 6: http://neuro.tv/ http://neuro.tv/ 7: https://twitter.com/JFGariepy https://twitter.com/JFGariepy

javert 11y ago
You can say that. But, he's still right.
- protomyth 11y ago
  Not the OP, but of course he's right. On the other hand, there is bit of a different between one of the princes of the kingdom abdicating his title while leaving the kingdom and a common person leaving the kingdom. Grant writing is a very painful form of writing and I have relatives that have made good money by being good at it[1]. I do believe it would be tough to do research and put the time in to be an acceptable grant writer. Something has got to give. 1) for those writing grant to certain government agencies, yeah, there is an old-boys/girls-club and using an "out" word in your grant is a killer (I've drank a lot of beer over the evolution of the word 'empowerment'). One tip my aunt told me is to volunteer to be a grant reader in DC. You see what everyone else is writing, know why things got accepted, and meet the people in charge.
  - tsotha 11y ago
    >Grant writing is a very painful form of writing and I have relatives that have made good money by being good at it[1]. I do believe it would be tough to do research and put the time in to be an acceptable grant writer. Something has got to give. I have tenured professor relatives and the thing that usually "gives" is the time spent on the actual research. From what I can see they spend a little time teaching, a little time managing grad students, and a lot of time grubbing for grants. I don't consider them scientists at all - they're middle managers. It's an enormous waste of talent.
sanderjd 11y ago
I downvoted this and I wanted to say why. It reads to me like a (perhaps well-researched) ad-hominem attack. Rather than speaking to the points raised by the post, you attempt to undermine the person who posted it.
- w1ntermute 11y ago
  I'm not undermining him at all, I'm simply sharing the broader context behind him resigning, which he omitted from his post. Even though he may not have been academically successful, it looks like he's got the street smarts necessary to make it in the real world, which you definitely can't say for many of the postdocs trapped in academia. And having seen some of the utterly ignorant comments people make online (including on HN) and in person about the biomedical sciences, we could use more people who both understand the science and can communicate it to the broader public.
- rflrob 11y ago
  It reads to me not so much as an ad hominem as an explanation of why he sounds so bitter towards academia. "He's only had one second author pub" is, almost unequivocally, a statement that he hasn't been academically successful. Maybe it's because he's not good at science, maybe he's not good at gaming the system around science, but something is off. Without hearing him talk about his work in something like a seminar (and being fairly familiar with his specialty, which I am not), it's really hard to say. I won't argue that the publishing system is perfect, but in my experience, it's really not "corrupted" in any meaningful sense of the word, and that good work will find a venue (even if not a glam journal). I think really the point that the GP is raising is that, protestations to the contrary aside, the OP really is bitter. Maybe they are truly disillusioned by the system around science, but such a critique does hold more weight coming from someone who has done well.
- JesperRavn 11y ago
  I think that it's fair to analyse the author's success or lack thereof, because he relies on this as part of his argument, e.g. My friends have also pointed out that I should not be "discouraged" by the difficulties faced as a scientist, that I should continue to "fight." Again, they are wrong; discouragements due to failures have never kept me down. I have never been afraid of failures and of retrying, and retrying again; my scientific successes are what discouraged me, because I know how they were obtained I will still publish my book, The Revolutionary Phenotype, which contains an important novel theory on the emergence of life The author's argument rests on both his success in academia in spite of its unfairness, but even more importantly, it relies on his claims to have found more fruitful pursuits outside academia. I don't think anyone really considers how personally fulfilling these pursuits to be to be an important issue, but rather whether he is actually correct that these pursuits are more valuable to society than academia.
qCOVET 11y ago
I think he is a rebellious entrepreneur who found himself confined in a space that does not align with who he is. I have been in his shoe and can clearly see why he chose to write that. He could have quietly vanished and worked as a 'research assistant' or some low level job at a biotech company (cuz he doesn't have the relevant work experience) or perhaps (like a friend of mine with 4 publications) in a janitorial wholesale place. But he is a fighter and I wish him the best in whatever journey he is going to embark on. As a post doc, it becomes extremely hard to switch career and this guy is struggling to make sense of his life, especially now that he is going to be a father. circRNA guys who posted on HN, should hire him.
pcrh 11y ago
From Pubmed, it appears that since 2007, he published 6 papers in one lab (likely his Ph.D. lab), including a first author in PNAS, and 4 papers in a second lab since 2013, including the Nat. Neurosci. paper you cite, where he is one of 3 authors. It isn't a terrible publication record. One would have to know the significance of what he did publish in order to judge properly. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Gariepy%20JF[auth] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Gariepy%20JF[auth]
- w1ntermute 11y ago
  > 4 papers in a second lab since 2013 Out of those 4 papers in his postdoc lab, two are reviews[0,1] and one is a peer commentary[2], so only the second-author paper I linked before counts as original research. Similarly, one of his (three) first-author publications from his PhD lab is also a review[3]. He does have two first-author publications from that lab, including one in PNAS[4], but neither of them seem to have been cited that much. In any case, you can't coast on your PhD publication record once you've been a postdoc for several years. 0: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nyas.12315/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nyas.12315/abstra... 1: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnins.2014.00058/abstract http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnins.2014.00... 2: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8958124&fileId=S0140525X12001938 http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPag... 3: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21111208 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21111208 4: http://www.pnas.org/content/109/2/E84.long http://www.pnas.org/content/109/2/E84.long
  - pcrh 11y ago
    There are only 3 authors on the Nat. Neurosci. paper, so he likely spent a large amount of his time working on this project. So it would be a bit unfair to compare his output in that lab to that of the first author of the same paper. Metrics are fine and all, but rarely tell the full picture. Not that I know what the full picture really looks like in this case...
    - jashephe 11y ago
daemonk 11y ago
I am sure his reason for leaving academia is multi-faceted. His publication record (it's not that bad really. Maybe not competitive enough for a tenure track position) and his other scientific communication activities probably are part of it. But I don't think it detracts from his complaints about academia.
- w1ntermute 11y ago
  > I am sure his reason for leaving academia is multi-faceted. Oh, absolutely. Another reason that I didn't include in my OP is that he got his Green Card on August 3rd[0], which probably opened up a lot of options that he didn't have before, at least if he wanted to stay in the country. Many postdocs do not have the luxury of a Green Card and its attendant freedom. 0: https://www.facebook.com/jfgariepyneuro/posts/455403391298027 https://www.facebook.com/jfgariepyneuro/posts/45540339129802...
toomim 11y ago
Actually, you're ignoring the author. He said that his publication successes drove him away from the system: I have never been afraid of failures and of retrying, and retrying again; my scientific successes are what discouraged me, because I know how they were obtained. My most important scientific articles were accepted in major journals because the editors had a favorable prejudice toward me or my co-authors; because I was insuring that I had a discussion with them before I submitted; or because the reviewers they chose happened to be close colleagues. You presume that he wouldn't "air dirty laundry" if he got a tenure-track position. But this ignores what he just said! Every academic success he achieved made him discouraged and want to leave. You aren't listening to him. Why do you call this "dirty laundry"? He addresses that too: Some of my best friends at Duke have told me that I sounded "bitter" when I expressed these concerns. I insure you that I am not and that I am writing these lines with the nonchalance and bliss of a man who has found other ways to be happy and to satisfy his own scientific curiosity. You aren't listening to him. Look, every time an academic leaves, the existing academics try to point out his lack of career success. It makes it easier for you to dismiss him. But that train of thought is flawed. By simple logic, the honest participants in corrupt systems WILL fail to succeed. These are the people to listen to! The honest scientists, with sound arguments, and poor publication records.
- w1ntermute 11y ago
  > You aren't listening to him. That's right, rather than taking his words at face value, I investigated the facts that he omitted from his narrative. They tell a slightly different story. None of that means that I don't share his opinions about the state of academic science.
  - toomim 11y ago
    I love new information, but your narrative conflicts with the existing facts: - He is not bitter - He did not leave because of failure Now it appears you aren't listening to me, because I've had to write this twice.
    - 11y ago
mcguire 11y ago
Or, hoping that his YouTube and authorial notoriety will pay for his ramen noodles after he ragequits. There is a charitable way of looking at the same data.
- w1ntermute 11y ago
  Given that he's quitting academia to become a stay-at-home dad (along with his YouTube/book endeavors), it's highly likely that his wife has a more remunerative profession than he does, and that that reality also figured into his decision. I doubt that affording basic necessities will be a concern of his.

javert 11y ago

You can say that. But, he's still right.

protomyth 11y ago
Not the OP, but of course he's right. On the other hand, there is bit of a different between one of the princes of the kingdom abdicating his title while leaving the kingdom and a common person leaving the kingdom. Grant writing is a very painful form of writing and I have relatives that have made good money by being good at it[1]. I do believe it would be tough to do research and put the time in to be an acceptable grant writer. Something has got to give. 1) for those writing grant to certain government agencies, yeah, there is an old-boys/girls-club and using an "out" word in your grant is a killer (I've drank a lot of beer over the evolution of the word 'empowerment'). One tip my aunt told me is to volunteer to be a grant reader in DC. You see what everyone else is writing, know why things got accepted, and meet the people in charge.
- tsotha 11y ago
  >Grant writing is a very painful form of writing and I have relatives that have made good money by being good at it[1]. I do believe it would be tough to do research and put the time in to be an acceptable grant writer. Something has got to give. I have tenured professor relatives and the thing that usually "gives" is the time spent on the actual research. From what I can see they spend a little time teaching, a little time managing grad students, and a lot of time grubbing for grants. I don't consider them scientists at all - they're middle managers. It's an enormous waste of talent.

sanderjd 11y ago

I downvoted this and I wanted to say why. It reads to me like a (perhaps well-researched) ad-hominem attack. Rather than speaking to the points raised by the post, you attempt to undermine the person who posted it.

w1ntermute 11y ago
I'm not undermining him at all, I'm simply sharing the broader context behind him resigning, which he omitted from his post. Even though he may not have been academically successful, it looks like he's got the street smarts necessary to make it in the real world, which you definitely can't say for many of the postdocs trapped in academia. And having seen some of the utterly ignorant comments people make online (including on HN) and in person about the biomedical sciences, we could use more people who both understand the science and can communicate it to the broader public.
rflrob 11y ago
It reads to me not so much as an ad hominem as an explanation of why he sounds so bitter towards academia. "He's only had one second author pub" is, almost unequivocally, a statement that he hasn't been academically successful. Maybe it's because he's not good at science, maybe he's not good at gaming the system around science, but something is off. Without hearing him talk about his work in something like a seminar (and being fairly familiar with his specialty, which I am not), it's really hard to say. I won't argue that the publishing system is perfect, but in my experience, it's really not "corrupted" in any meaningful sense of the word, and that good work will find a venue (even if not a glam journal). I think really the point that the GP is raising is that, protestations to the contrary aside, the OP really is bitter. Maybe they are truly disillusioned by the system around science, but such a critique does hold more weight coming from someone who has done well.
JesperRavn 11y ago
I think that it's fair to analyse the author's success or lack thereof, because he relies on this as part of his argument, e.g. My friends have also pointed out that I should not be "discouraged" by the difficulties faced as a scientist, that I should continue to "fight." Again, they are wrong; discouragements due to failures have never kept me down. I have never been afraid of failures and of retrying, and retrying again; my scientific successes are what discouraged me, because I know how they were obtained I will still publish my book, The Revolutionary Phenotype, which contains an important novel theory on the emergence of life The author's argument rests on both his success in academia in spite of its unfairness, but even more importantly, it relies on his claims to have found more fruitful pursuits outside academia. I don't think anyone really considers how personally fulfilling these pursuits to be to be an important issue, but rather whether he is actually correct that these pursuits are more valuable to society than academia.

qCOVET 11y ago

I think he is a rebellious entrepreneur who found himself confined in a space that does not align with who he is. I have been in his shoe and can clearly see why he chose to write that. He could have quietly vanished and worked as a 'research assistant' or some low level job at a biotech company (cuz he doesn't have the relevant work experience) or perhaps (like a friend of mine with 4 publications) in a janitorial wholesale place. But he is a fighter and I wish him the best in whatever journey he is going to embark on. As a post doc, it becomes extremely hard to switch career and this guy is struggling to make sense of his life, especially now that he is going to be a father. circRNA guys who posted on HN, should hire him.

pcrh 11y ago

From Pubmed, it appears that since 2007, he published 6 papers in one lab (likely his Ph.D. lab), including a first author in PNAS, and 4 papers in a second lab since 2013, including the Nat. Neurosci. paper you cite, where he is one of 3 authors. It isn't a terrible publication record. One would have to know the significance of what he did publish in order to judge properly. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Gariepy%20JF[auth] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Gariepy%20JF[auth]

w1ntermute 11y ago
> 4 papers in a second lab since 2013 Out of those 4 papers in his postdoc lab, two are reviews[0,1] and one is a peer commentary[2], so only the second-author paper I linked before counts as original research. Similarly, one of his (three) first-author publications from his PhD lab is also a review[3]. He does have two first-author publications from that lab, including one in PNAS[4], but neither of them seem to have been cited that much. In any case, you can't coast on your PhD publication record once you've been a postdoc for several years. 0: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nyas.12315/abstract http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/nyas.12315/abstra... 1: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnins.2014.00058/abstract http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnins.2014.00... 2: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=8958124&fileId=S0140525X12001938 http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPag... 3: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21111208 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21111208 4: http://www.pnas.org/content/109/2/E84.long http://www.pnas.org/content/109/2/E84.long
- pcrh 11y ago
  There are only 3 authors on the Nat. Neurosci. paper, so he likely spent a large amount of his time working on this project. So it would be a bit unfair to compare his output in that lab to that of the first author of the same paper. Metrics are fine and all, but rarely tell the full picture. Not that I know what the full picture really looks like in this case...
  - jashephe 11y ago

daemonk 11y ago

I am sure his reason for leaving academia is multi-faceted. His publication record (it's not that bad really. Maybe not competitive enough for a tenure track position) and his other scientific communication activities probably are part of it. But I don't think it detracts from his complaints about academia.

w1ntermute 11y ago
> I am sure his reason for leaving academia is multi-faceted. Oh, absolutely. Another reason that I didn't include in my OP is that he got his Green Card on August 3rd[0], which probably opened up a lot of options that he didn't have before, at least if he wanted to stay in the country. Many postdocs do not have the luxury of a Green Card and its attendant freedom. 0: https://www.facebook.com/jfgariepyneuro/posts/455403391298027 https://www.facebook.com/jfgariepyneuro/posts/45540339129802...

toomim 11y ago

Actually, you're ignoring the author. He said that his publication successes drove him away from the system: I have never been afraid of failures and of retrying, and retrying again; my scientific successes are what discouraged me, because I know how they were obtained. My most important scientific articles were accepted in major journals because the editors had a favorable prejudice toward me or my co-authors; because I was insuring that I had a discussion with them before I submitted; or because the reviewers they chose happened to be close colleagues. You presume that he wouldn't "air dirty laundry" if he got a tenure-track position. But this ignores what he just said! Every academic success he achieved made him discouraged and want to leave. You aren't listening to him. Why do you call this "dirty laundry"? He addresses that too: Some of my best friends at Duke have told me that I sounded "bitter" when I expressed these concerns. I insure you that I am not and that I am writing these lines with the nonchalance and bliss of a man who has found other ways to be happy and to satisfy his own scientific curiosity. You aren't listening to him. Look, every time an academic leaves, the existing academics try to point out his lack of career success. It makes it easier for you to dismiss him. But that train of thought is flawed. By simple logic, the honest participants in corrupt systems WILL fail to succeed. These are the people to listen to! The honest scientists, with sound arguments, and poor publication records.

w1ntermute 11y ago
> You aren't listening to him. That's right, rather than taking his words at face value, I investigated the facts that he omitted from his narrative. They tell a slightly different story. None of that means that I don't share his opinions about the state of academic science.
- toomim 11y ago
  I love new information, but your narrative conflicts with the existing facts: - He is not bitter - He did not leave because of failure Now it appears you aren't listening to me, because I've had to write this twice.
  - 11y ago

mcguire 11y ago

Or, hoping that his YouTube and authorial notoriety will pay for his ramen noodles after he ragequits. There is a charitable way of looking at the same data.

w1ntermute 11y ago
Given that he's quitting academia to become a stay-at-home dad (along with his YouTube/book endeavors), it's highly likely that his wife has a more remunerative profession than he does, and that that reality also figured into his decision. I doubt that affording basic necessities will be a concern of his.