6 ms·

Yes and no. In some fields, such as mathematics (applied & pure), one can squeak by without a grant, and many do. This has to do with the funding model in dif

by kkylin 10y ago

Yes and no. In some fields, such as mathematics (applied & pure), one can squeak by without a grant, and many do. This has to do with the funding model in different fields -- math departments tend to have enough TA positions to support all their grad students, which lightens the pressure to secure funding. Of course the trade-off is time spent teaching lower-division courses vs actually doing research. As for tenure, it qualifies one for all kinds of service. So job security is nice, no questions about it, but one has even less time for serious work (unless you are willing to say no to requests to serve -- and some of these committees do matter).

hprotagonist 10y ago
Like i said. In the physical sciences, you can't do it. Math is not a physical science -- and you can get stunning breakthroughs without anything except a quiet room, a pad of paper, a pencil, and a trash can. (old joke: /s/math/philosophy and remove the trash can!) This is not true if you're a microbiologist.
- Retric 10y ago
  You can do original microbiologist research on the cheap. For an extreme case, Einstein did useful theoretical physics without a lab. Money vastly expands the scope of work you can do, but breaking new ground is often less expensive than making minor refinements to well understood areas. PS: The real risk is will likely will go 20+ years without finding anything, but if you have tenure that should not be a problem.
  - hprotagonist 10y ago
    You've never tried to buy a good microscope, have you? Kitting out a lab to do publishable work in a lot of fields right now is just jaw-droppingly expensive.
    - Retric 10y ago
      Good optical microscope's are really not that expensive and last a long time. (AKA under 1,000$.) The equipment costs can quickly go up with new electron microscopes running 500k-6mill etc. But, restricting yourself to the minimum equipment 1 person needs for a specific kind of research is significantly cheaper than a more abstract lab. Further, used equipment can often be vastly cheaper. Honestly, time and consumables really are the biggest issues.
      - mattkrause 10y ago
        Where are you shopping? Florescent microscopes are in the low six figures and others are much more expensive. A confocal microscope is typically several hundreds of thousands of dollars, potentially approaching $1M if it has all the bells and whistles. Super-res and high-throughput imaging can also consume essentially infinite amounts of money. You could probably get a usable brightfield microscope for around a $1,000 but realistically, you're not publishing much with that alone.
      - hprotagonist 10y ago
        Any decent fluorescent scope + base + optics + laser + dichroic will run you well north of 250K. Just the objectives are 10-20K. Two photon, more like 750. You want to do funny stuff like FRET or PALM or STED? You'll spend 700 grand on parts, and a year building the thing yourself because nobody sells them. You will not publish anything good enough to get tenure if all you have is widefield and a lamp in basically any biomedical field.
        Retric 10y ago
        I am in no way saying this stuff is not really really useful across a wide area. Just not required for every topic type of research. Further, the assumption is this is someone that has tenure but not funding and is thus able to take long shot risks. Think designing an artificial intestines for microbiome research, not yet another paper using E. coli.
- johncolanduoni 10y ago
  The funding requirements for theoretical physics aren't really any different from mathematics (and like mathematics, there's usually more than enough TA positions to go around).
- kkylin 10y ago
  Yes, that's true -- math is not a physical science in that sense. Though as another poster pointed out, theoretical physics is not so different from mathematics in this way, so perhaps the distinction is more between experimenters and theorists. (However, I've no idea what life is like for theoretical computer scientists without any kind of external funding support.)

by kkylin 10y ago

hprotagonist 10y ago

Like i said. In the physical sciences, you can't do it. Math is not a physical science -- and you can get stunning breakthroughs without anything except a quiet room, a pad of paper, a pencil, and a trash can. (old joke: /s/math/philosophy and remove the trash can!) This is not true if you're a microbiologist.

Retric 10y ago
You can do original microbiologist research on the cheap. For an extreme case, Einstein did useful theoretical physics without a lab. Money vastly expands the scope of work you can do, but breaking new ground is often less expensive than making minor refinements to well understood areas. PS: The real risk is will likely will go 20+ years without finding anything, but if you have tenure that should not be a problem.
- hprotagonist 10y ago
  You've never tried to buy a good microscope, have you? Kitting out a lab to do publishable work in a lot of fields right now is just jaw-droppingly expensive.
  - Retric 10y ago
    Good optical microscope's are really not that expensive and last a long time. (AKA under 1,000$.) The equipment costs can quickly go up with new electron microscopes running 500k-6mill etc. But, restricting yourself to the minimum equipment 1 person needs for a specific kind of research is significantly cheaper than a more abstract lab. Further, used equipment can often be vastly cheaper. Honestly, time and consumables really are the biggest issues.
    - mattkrause 10y ago
      Where are you shopping? Florescent microscopes are in the low six figures and others are much more expensive. A confocal microscope is typically several hundreds of thousands of dollars, potentially approaching $1M if it has all the bells and whistles. Super-res and high-throughput imaging can also consume essentially infinite amounts of money. You could probably get a usable brightfield microscope for around a $1,000 but realistically, you're not publishing much with that alone.
    - hprotagonist 10y ago
      Any decent fluorescent scope + base + optics + laser + dichroic will run you well north of 250K. Just the objectives are 10-20K. Two photon, more like 750. You want to do funny stuff like FRET or PALM or STED? You'll spend 700 grand on parts, and a year building the thing yourself because nobody sells them. You will not publish anything good enough to get tenure if all you have is widefield and a lamp in basically any biomedical field.
      - Retric 10y ago
        I am in no way saying this stuff is not really really useful across a wide area. Just not required for every topic type of research. Further, the assumption is this is someone that has tenure but not funding and is thus able to take long shot risks. Think designing an artificial intestines for microbiome research, not yet another paper using E. coli.
johncolanduoni 10y ago
The funding requirements for theoretical physics aren't really any different from mathematics (and like mathematics, there's usually more than enough TA positions to go around).
kkylin 10y ago
Yes, that's true -- math is not a physical science in that sense. Though as another poster pointed out, theoretical physics is not so different from mathematics in this way, so perhaps the distinction is more between experimenters and theorists. (However, I've no idea what life is like for theoretical computer scientists without any kind of external funding support.)