4 ms·

At least anecdotally the opposite is true. Researchers who are getting publication worthy results are in general hustling to manage multiple projects, run expe

At least anecdotally the opposite is true. Researchers who are getting publication worthy results are in general hustling to manage multiple projects, run experiments, write papers, apply for grants... The most talented researchers I know are without exception the ones who willingly live in their own lab. By their own admission they love it though. I don't sense burnout.

dheera 10y ago
publication worthy != famous Publication-worthy scientists try to manage multiple projects, work slave hours in the lab, interact with people 60+ hours a week, shaving themselves to fit perfectly into the mould of the scientific community. Sure-fire 50% improvements on existing results should be chased, because you'll get a paper in your name. Low-hanging fruit should be chased, because you'll get a paper in your name. Papers in your name gets you degrees, tenure, and more grants. Forget chasing 10-fold improvements. 10-fold improvements are dangerous because they're likely to fail -- too risky when you're trying to get grants, get tenure, or get your PhD. http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1436 http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1436 Famous scientists didn't care about tenure, PhDs, papers, or any of that crap. They cared exclusively about 10-fold, 100-fold, 1000-fold improvements. Some published papers in peer-reviewed journals, but many had a hard time getting them reviewed because of their controversial ideas, especially if they were theoretical. Of course, for every famous scientist, there are hundreds of others that tried and failed hard, and you never heard about them.
- amelius 10y ago
  Of course, merely by statistics, there must be a few exceptions too, i.e. lab slaves becoming famous by accident. And the question then is if those exceptions are more abundant than those famous people going for the hard results.

dheera 10y ago

publication worthy != famous Publication-worthy scientists try to manage multiple projects, work slave hours in the lab, interact with people 60+ hours a week, shaving themselves to fit perfectly into the mould of the scientific community. Sure-fire 50% improvements on existing results should be chased, because you'll get a paper in your name. Low-hanging fruit should be chased, because you'll get a paper in your name. Papers in your name gets you degrees, tenure, and more grants. Forget chasing 10-fold improvements. 10-fold improvements are dangerous because they're likely to fail -- too risky when you're trying to get grants, get tenure, or get your PhD. http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1436 http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1436 Famous scientists didn't care about tenure, PhDs, papers, or any of that crap. They cared exclusively about 10-fold, 100-fold, 1000-fold improvements. Some published papers in peer-reviewed journals, but many had a hard time getting them reviewed because of their controversial ideas, especially if they were theoretical. Of course, for every famous scientist, there are hundreds of others that tried and failed hard, and you never heard about them.

amelius 10y ago
Of course, merely by statistics, there must be a few exceptions too, i.e. lab slaves becoming famous by accident. And the question then is if those exceptions are more abundant than those famous people going for the hard results.