5 ms·

The title seems disingenuous. He didn't leave science because of a lack of funding, but because academic dysfunction caused the massive amount of funding to go

The title seems disingenuous. He didn't leave science because of a lack of funding, but because academic dysfunction caused the massive amount of funding to go to those who don't deserve it: > In a lengthy 2008 interview with the journal Current Biology, he brought up some serious issues with how research funding is allocated and how biases creep into scientific publications. He complained that some of the “stars” in science “have not really earned their status” yet they continued to receive massive amounts of funding. What should we do then, pile heaps of more money into academia? Sure, but also address the obvious dysfunction in a meaningful way, or else it's wasted.

ryandrake 9y ago
Hate to tell him, but welcome to the real world. This is not a problem specific to academia! Stars not having really earned their status? This is true in all institutions, businesses, governments, schools, home owners associations, book clubs, sewing circles, etc. Any group of people where "resources" are allocated by a human, there will be people who earn their status and there will be people who instead focus on influencing the allocators. Strange to have to tell grown-ups this.
- jknoepfler 9y ago
  I don't think Hall "needs to be told" anything. The people who lost out here aren't Hall and the academics who can't get funding. Hall is doing fine in the private sector. The people who lose in this situation are the public, who no longer own the research output, and who no longer benefit from the long-term gains made by primary research. We should create, for ourselves, a sustainable research economy. We've failed to do that. Are you suggesting it's impossible because you think "reality isn't fair" or "people suck"? I don't think the latter entails the former.
  - pdfernhout 9y ago
    From the conclusion of this 1994 paper: https://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/crunch_art.html https://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/crunch_art.html "Let me finish by summarizing what I've been trying to tell you. We stand at an historic juncture in the history of science. The long era of exponential expansion ended decades ago, but we have not yet reconciled ourselves to that fact. The present social structure of science, by which I mean institutions, education, funding, publications and so on all evolved during the period of exponential expansion, before The Big Crunch. They are not suited to the unknown future we face. Today's scientific leaders, in the universities, government, industry and the scientific societies are mostly people who came of age during the golden era, 1950 - 1970. I am myself part of that generation. We think those were normal times and expect them to return. But we are wrong. Nothing like it will ever happen again. It is by no means certain that science will even survive, much less flourish, in the difficult times we face. Before it can survive, those of us who have gained so much from the era of scientific elites and scientific illiterates must learn to face reality, and admit that those days are gone forever. I think we have our work cut out for us."
  - cowsandmilk 9y ago
    > Hall is doing fine in the private sector. He moved into the woods of Maine to a town w/ a population less than 500. He is doing fine, but he isn't in the private sector. Losing funding meant "he's retired with dwindling coffers"[1]. [1] https://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2017/10/03/jeffrey-c.-hall-says-nobel-prize-unexpected/106251992/ https://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2017/10/03/jeffr...
- ajeet_dhaliwal 9y ago
  I agree that there are parallels of this phenomena in other fields. It’s part of human nature. The people good at self marketing procure more resources even if they are technically worse.
  - randomsearch 9y ago
    Don't you think you should design a better system where this doesn't happen, or perhaps occurs less frequently? For example, stop simply awarding grants based on proposals, and instead spread the money more evenly - reducing grant-writing overhead and giving everyone funding to at least _do something_.
- mattkrause 9y ago
  It is though... He's not arguing that stars shouldn't exist; he's arguing that funding decisions should be less influenced by "star power" and there are policy tweaks that could help achieve that. It's worth noting that at the NIH (etc), you don't really know who "the allocators" are. Program managers make the final funding decisions, but they rely heavily on peer review and you don't know who in the study section will be reviewing your proposal. Changing this so they don't know the proposer's identities either might help.
epistasis 9y ago
No, he says he ran out of research money: >I admit that I resent running out of research money…recent applications from our lab have had their lungs ripped out, often accompanied by sneering, personal denunciations—perhaps reflecting the fact that this old-timer has lost his touch. It's more disingenuous to say that the title itself is disingenuous. If a startup winds down because it doesn't get funding, it's perfectly ok to say that it wound down due to lack of funding. Saying that it wound down because others got the money that could have gone to them, is a really really weird way to phrase it.
OliverJones 9y ago
I, for one, am happy to hear Dr. Hall speaking up about the problem of superstar principal investigators. They do have the potential to slow down real inquiry.

ryandrake 9y ago

Hate to tell him, but welcome to the real world. This is not a problem specific to academia! Stars not having really earned their status? This is true in all institutions, businesses, governments, schools, home owners associations, book clubs, sewing circles, etc. Any group of people where "resources" are allocated by a human, there will be people who earn their status and there will be people who instead focus on influencing the allocators. Strange to have to tell grown-ups this.

jknoepfler 9y ago
I don't think Hall "needs to be told" anything. The people who lost out here aren't Hall and the academics who can't get funding. Hall is doing fine in the private sector. The people who lose in this situation are the public, who no longer own the research output, and who no longer benefit from the long-term gains made by primary research. We should create, for ourselves, a sustainable research economy. We've failed to do that. Are you suggesting it's impossible because you think "reality isn't fair" or "people suck"? I don't think the latter entails the former.
- pdfernhout 9y ago
  From the conclusion of this 1994 paper: https://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/crunch_art.html https://www.its.caltech.edu/~dg/crunch_art.html "Let me finish by summarizing what I've been trying to tell you. We stand at an historic juncture in the history of science. The long era of exponential expansion ended decades ago, but we have not yet reconciled ourselves to that fact. The present social structure of science, by which I mean institutions, education, funding, publications and so on all evolved during the period of exponential expansion, before The Big Crunch. They are not suited to the unknown future we face. Today's scientific leaders, in the universities, government, industry and the scientific societies are mostly people who came of age during the golden era, 1950 - 1970. I am myself part of that generation. We think those were normal times and expect them to return. But we are wrong. Nothing like it will ever happen again. It is by no means certain that science will even survive, much less flourish, in the difficult times we face. Before it can survive, those of us who have gained so much from the era of scientific elites and scientific illiterates must learn to face reality, and admit that those days are gone forever. I think we have our work cut out for us."
- cowsandmilk 9y ago
  > Hall is doing fine in the private sector. He moved into the woods of Maine to a town w/ a population less than 500. He is doing fine, but he isn't in the private sector. Losing funding meant "he's retired with dwindling coffers"[1]. [1] https://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2017/10/03/jeffrey-c.-hall-says-nobel-prize-unexpected/106251992/ https://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2017/10/03/jeffr...
ajeet_dhaliwal 9y ago
I agree that there are parallels of this phenomena in other fields. It’s part of human nature. The people good at self marketing procure more resources even if they are technically worse.
- randomsearch 9y ago
  Don't you think you should design a better system where this doesn't happen, or perhaps occurs less frequently? For example, stop simply awarding grants based on proposals, and instead spread the money more evenly - reducing grant-writing overhead and giving everyone funding to at least _do something_.
mattkrause 9y ago
It is though... He's not arguing that stars shouldn't exist; he's arguing that funding decisions should be less influenced by "star power" and there are policy tweaks that could help achieve that. It's worth noting that at the NIH (etc), you don't really know who "the allocators" are. Program managers make the final funding decisions, but they rely heavily on peer review and you don't know who in the study section will be reviewing your proposal. Changing this so they don't know the proposer's identities either might help.

epistasis 9y ago

No, he says he ran out of research money: >I admit that I resent running out of research money…recent applications from our lab have had their lungs ripped out, often accompanied by sneering, personal denunciations—perhaps reflecting the fact that this old-timer has lost his touch. It's more disingenuous to say that the title itself is disingenuous. If a startup winds down because it doesn't get funding, it's perfectly ok to say that it wound down due to lack of funding. Saying that it wound down because others got the money that could have gone to them, is a really really weird way to phrase it.

OliverJones 9y ago

I, for one, am happy to hear Dr. Hall speaking up about the problem of superstar principal investigators. They do have the potential to slow down real inquiry.