4 ms·
Right... I don't know if he's even the worst though (personally I think Craig Ventor is way worse the Chruch). I don't think he's all that bad overall. I think
by comstock 9y ago
Right... I don't know if he's even the worst though (personally I think Craig Ventor is way worse the Chruch).
I don't think he's all that bad overall. I think he helps direct effort to interesting problems. Much academic work is something of a moonshot these days, and your job is to also carve out some useful incremental advances.
People who put too much stock in what he says are likely to be more to blame. For example, if you see him on the board of a company or as a scientific advisor I wouldn't think much of it. That's because he's on the board of practically everything.
But personally, and from people I've spoken to, I've found him to be friendly and helpful and basically a good guy. That's about as much as you can ask.
- thingification 9y agoCan you expand on "Much academic work is something of a moonshot these days, and your job is to also carve out some useful incremental advances."? My own assessment is that there is too much low-risk low-reward work in medicine (and its intersection with biology), and I want to hear/read about how I'm wrong.
- comstock 9y agoYou need to make grand claims, state grand objectives to get funding. The easiest route to publication is then incremental advances. Ideally with a story around them that makes them sound like part of a grand plan.