5 ms·

But let's not forget that a significant proportion of stakeholders have no interest in changing the system. The same "broken" system is actually a way to provid

by patkai 11y ago

But let's not forget that a significant proportion of stakeholders have no interest in changing the system. The same "broken" system is actually a way to provide hidden subsidies for industry, decrease unemployment (in many countries), show the public that "research funding was increased by the government", and who knows what else.

danieltillett 11y ago
Sure there is a strong vested interest in the status quo by those that have succeeded in it, but it has reached such an extreme level that it is killing science. My experience is that the successful scientists within the current system love science enough to change even if it puts them at a disadvantage. Having said this we could grandfather in the current “winners” and move the funding to the new system over a long time period (say 20 years). We really need to do something as the current system will destroy science if we let it continue.
- patkai 11y ago
  "the current system will destroy science" I'm uncertain about this. The scientific method can luckily not be destroyed, and I wonder whether the self-destruction of academia is a good or bad thing. It is certainly not painless and will certainly take innocent victims. If you consider non-equilibrium thermodynamics analogies, the quicker the system destroys itself the better it is, as it more or less _has to_ explode before it reorganises. In Finland it has started already, as universities are required to get part of their funding from industry, and it's especially hard to accomplish in smaller cities.
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    The scientific can’t be destroyed, but the scientific infrastructure can be. To do experiments and make scientific breakthroughs you need access to a wide range of skills, equipment, and reagents. If this goes it will not be easy to get it back.

5 ms·

But let's not forget that a significant proportion of stakeholders have no interest in changing the system. The same "broken" system is actually a way to provid

by patkai 11y ago

danieltillett 11y ago
Sure there is a strong vested interest in the status quo by those that have succeeded in it, but it has reached such an extreme level that it is killing science. My experience is that the successful scientists within the current system love science enough to change even if it puts them at a disadvantage. Having said this we could grandfather in the current “winners” and move the funding to the new system over a long time period (say 20 years). We really need to do something as the current system will destroy science if we let it continue.
- patkai 11y ago
  "the current system will destroy science" I'm uncertain about this. The scientific method can luckily not be destroyed, and I wonder whether the self-destruction of academia is a good or bad thing. It is certainly not painless and will certainly take innocent victims. If you consider non-equilibrium thermodynamics analogies, the quicker the system destroys itself the better it is, as it more or less _has to_ explode before it reorganises. In Finland it has started already, as universities are required to get part of their funding from industry, and it's especially hard to accomplish in smaller cities.
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    The scientific can’t be destroyed, but the scientific infrastructure can be. To do experiments and make scientific breakthroughs you need access to a wide range of skills, equipment, and reagents. If this goes it will not be easy to get it back.