7 ms·

I would go even further and say that competition is vital to innovation. Without it, too few are willing to take risks and progress stagnates.

by _rpd 9y ago

IntronExon 9y ago
You don’t think the prospect of treating cancer is insufficient motivation, there needs to be some poxy “race” as well? You’re selling both the motivations of researchers, and the practical rewards of that research short.
- _rpd 9y ago
  It is less about individuals and more about the organizations and funding systems that accumulate over time. Any research worth their salt can tell you stories of opportunities missed due to bureaucratic constraints.
- jamesrcole 9y ago
  What is the problem with there being a race element as well? Anyway, I don't see how it's avoidable. There'll be kudos, prestige, more grant money, etc for people who make advances, so there's going to be a race element to it as well.
  - IntronExon 9y ago
    I would go even further and say that competition is vital to innovation. Without it, too few are willing to take risks and progress stagnates. That’s what I responded to. Vital. Few willing to take risks. To fight cancer!
    - jamesrcole 9y ago
      I don't know about "vital" but I do think competition is intrinsic to it. They want to make a contribution to addressing this important problem, which means they want to beat others to it. It adds impetus. Also, the motivations I mentioned apply, to some extent, to the funding bodies.
      - IntronExon 9y ago
        Every one of those individuals and their bosses, and fundraisers all are or will be affected by cancer, either personally or in their close relationships. There is a reason why cancer research is so well funded, both privately and through charity. Ideology isn’t required here.
        jamesrcole 9y ago
        Why are you equating races to be first with ideology? I do not see any connection at all. Also, I think the reasons you give are exactly why you should want there to be races involved, because they will help speed progress. You said they weren't vital to doing the research, and I concede that, but you haven't argued that progress will happen at the same or a faster pace without competition.
        IntronExon 9y ago
        I don't think that I need to given the universal stakes I’ve described. Neither you nor the original poster I replied to have explained why a much less significant “race” aspect would be helpful, and I’m not eager to adopt that burden for you. Science works best as a collaborative effort, and races breed insular teamwork. There is already tons of money tomfoht cancer, not in the least because of the fame and fortune awaiting anyone making signifanct inroads to curing cancer. So what does this additional “race” crap add that isn’t already there?
        jamesrcole 9y ago
        > Neither you nor the original poster I replied to have explained why a much less significant “race” aspect would be helpful and > Science works best as a collaborative effort, and races breed insular teamwork. The answer to these is easy: history clearly shows that competition makes a big difference, in both science and technology. Have you considered also that these collaborations often occur within a larger framework of competition between competing groups? > fame and fortune awaiting anyone making signifanct inroads to curing cancer. As I said in an earlier reply to you, this is a reason why competition is intrinsic. It's not a choice about whether you want it or not, it's going to happen, and the quoted part of your comment is pretty much admitting that. > some poxy “race” ... a much less significant “race” aspect ... what does this additional “race” crap you keep describing it in pejorative terms, without explaining why it is supposedly so bad. The only thing I can see is you mentioning "races breed insular teamwork". Do you have any evidence that races actually slow down progress, or is it just that you find the idea of them distasteful? And I'll ask again, what has competition (there being races) have to do with ideology?
  - da_chicken 9y ago
    > What is the problem with there being a race element as well? What about competition makes it some universal good? The entire field of game theory exists because direct competition creates paradoxes and dilemmas, and cooperation can result in greater rewards for everyone involved. More specifically, doesn't anybody else remember the numerous scientific misconduct scandals that have plagued China? In their race to be first they've been willing to sacrifice research integrity to get there. When we see 40% of biomedical papers from China having problems (http://retractionwatch.com/2017/05/18/four-10-biomedical-papers-tainted-misconduct-chinese-scientists-say/ http://retractionwatch.com/2017/05/18/four-10-biomedical-pap...) I'm not entirely sure I'd trust their result claims.
    - jamesrcole 9y ago
      > What about competition makes it some universal good? You're criticising a strawman. Nobody said it was a universal good. I said it was unavoidable (it is intrinsic to the research process), and I said (in various comments) that it's a good thing (i.e. a net positive), including that there's clear historical evidence of this.
      - da_chicken 9y ago
        > I said it was unavoidable (it is intrinsic to the research process) No, it isn't. It's intrinsic to our research culture and that's wildly different. Look, competition gets us things like Microsoft Windows and iOS. Cooperation gets us things like BSD and Linux. Competition gets us the Google Play App store. Cooperation gets us the Debian repository. > and I said (in various comments) that it's a good thing (i.e. a net positive), including that there's clear historical evidence of this. Except you don't cite anything. What about the fact that essentially nobody does repeat experiments because they're all busy racing for original research? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis) What about the fact that people often select studies based on what will attraction attention, rather than what will actually best advance the field. Boring and uninteresting but extremely important research topics get ignored because they don't result in glory for the university or researcher. We're emphasizing the importance of breakthroughs over incremental research while simultaneously not reproducing those studies to confirm their findings! That is how a culture of competition over cooperation in research and science harms our ability to solve problems and conduct research.
- loceng 9y ago
  The motivation comes from seeing or experience loved ones you know suffering, up to dying, from cancer - and perhaps from seeing the barbaric feeling treatments that exist for cancer currently. Edit: I suppose having races is positive hype-marketing machine, hopefully playfully tapping into our dopamine reward systems.
  - IntronExon 9y ago
    Exactly, we’ve all been affected in some way by cancer, no need for a race against anything other than cancer itself.
    - loceng 9y ago
      Well put.
- daxorid 9y ago
  > treating cancer is insufficient motivation The fact that the US unnecessarily hamstrings cancer research over dubious moral qualms clearly indicates that yes, treating cancer is itself insufficient motivation in this country.
  - IntronExon 9y ago
    What dubious moral qualms are you referring to?
    - vkou 9y ago
      Things like requiring drug companies to conclusively prove that their treatments actually work and don't kill people when used as intended.
      - IntronExon 9y ago
        How monstrous! I too yearn for the halcyon days of thalidomide.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > You’re selling both the motivations of researchers, and the practical rewards of that research short You're selling the evidence short [1][2]. Commercial, political and basic research opportunities compete for resources from the same well. Competition increases the tap to basic research. That, in turn, increases output. (Up to a point [3].) [1] http://www.jstor.org/stable/2094753?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents http://www.jstor.org/stable/2094753?seq=1#page_scan_tab_cont... [2] http://www.mba.intercol.edu/Entrepreneurship/UT%20Computer%20Science%20Course/Simple_Economics_Basic_Research.pdf http://www.mba.intercol.edu/Entrepreneurship/UT%20Computer%2... [3] http://eprints.rclis.org/23682/1/Current-socio-published-non-Sage-format.pdf http://eprints.rclis.org/23682/1/Current-socio-published-non...
- realitygrill 9y ago
  As for the motivations of researchers: If any student comes to me and says he wants to be useful to mankind and go into research to alleviate human suffering, I advise him to go into charity instead. Research wants real egotists who seek their own pleasure and satisfaction, but find it in solving the puzzles of nature. --Albert Szent-Györgyi My [indefensible] impression is that altruistic culture is a strong part of the reason why the quality of biomedical researchers is so poor, and cancer research funding is so often near-fraudulent.
  - musage 9y ago
    "Research" doesn't want anything, and if that guy wants that, he should make a good case for it. Personally, I find this has the priorities much more in line: > Our time is distinguished by wonderful achievements in the fields of scientific understanding and the technical application of those insights. Who would not be cheered by this? But let us not forget that human knowledge and skills alone cannot lead humanity to a happy and dignified life. Humanity has every reason to place the proclaimers of high moral standards and values above the discoverers of objective truth. What humanity owes to personalities like Buddha, Moses, and Jesus ranks for me higher than all the achievements of the enquiring and constructive mind. What these blessed men have given us we must guard and try to keep alive with all our strength if humanity is not to lose its dignity, the security of its existence, and its joy in living. -- Albert Einstein > My [indefensible] impression is that altruistic culture is a strong part of the reason why the quality of biomedical researchers is so poor, and cancer research funding is so often near-fraudulent. Indefensible means you're not prepared to offer any elaboration at all? What's the line of reasoning here? Nevermind evidence, but you have to have more than just the claim. And what is fraudulent funding? If all people involved were "too altruistic", would anyone ever make sloppy research to grab funding, around a subject involving so much suffering?
- tooltalk 9y ago
  Sure, altruistic motives and races aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Their ends goals are to find cure for cancer, but researchers should be able to use different, competing approaches to find the best solution to the problem.

I would go even further and say that competition is vital to innovation. Without it, too few are willing to take risks and progress stagnates.

by _rpd 9y ago

I would go even further and say that competition is vital to innovation. Without it, too few are willing to take risks and progress stagnates.

IntronExon 9y ago

You don’t think the prospect of treating cancer is insufficient motivation, there needs to be some poxy “race” as well? You’re selling both the motivations of researchers, and the practical rewards of that research short.

_rpd 9y ago
It is less about individuals and more about the organizations and funding systems that accumulate over time. Any research worth their salt can tell you stories of opportunities missed due to bureaucratic constraints.
jamesrcole 9y ago
What is the problem with there being a race element as well? Anyway, I don't see how it's avoidable. There'll be kudos, prestige, more grant money, etc for people who make advances, so there's going to be a race element to it as well.
- IntronExon 9y ago
  I would go even further and say that competition is vital to innovation. Without it, too few are willing to take risks and progress stagnates. That’s what I responded to. Vital. Few willing to take risks. To fight cancer!
  - jamesrcole 9y ago
    I don't know about "vital" but I do think competition is intrinsic to it. They want to make a contribution to addressing this important problem, which means they want to beat others to it. It adds impetus. Also, the motivations I mentioned apply, to some extent, to the funding bodies.
    - IntronExon 9y ago
      Every one of those individuals and their bosses, and fundraisers all are or will be affected by cancer, either personally or in their close relationships. There is a reason why cancer research is so well funded, both privately and through charity. Ideology isn’t required here.
      - jamesrcole 9y ago
        Why are you equating races to be first with ideology? I do not see any connection at all. Also, I think the reasons you give are exactly why you should want there to be races involved, because they will help speed progress. You said they weren't vital to doing the research, and I concede that, but you haven't argued that progress will happen at the same or a faster pace without competition.
        IntronExon 9y ago
        I don't think that I need to given the universal stakes I’ve described. Neither you nor the original poster I replied to have explained why a much less significant “race” aspect would be helpful, and I’m not eager to adopt that burden for you. Science works best as a collaborative effort, and races breed insular teamwork. There is already tons of money tomfoht cancer, not in the least because of the fame and fortune awaiting anyone making signifanct inroads to curing cancer. So what does this additional “race” crap add that isn’t already there?
        jamesrcole 9y ago
        > Neither you nor the original poster I replied to have explained why a much less significant “race” aspect would be helpful and > Science works best as a collaborative effort, and races breed insular teamwork. The answer to these is easy: history clearly shows that competition makes a big difference, in both science and technology. Have you considered also that these collaborations often occur within a larger framework of competition between competing groups? > fame and fortune awaiting anyone making signifanct inroads to curing cancer. As I said in an earlier reply to you, this is a reason why competition is intrinsic. It's not a choice about whether you want it or not, it's going to happen, and the quoted part of your comment is pretty much admitting that. > some poxy “race” ... a much less significant “race” aspect ... what does this additional “race” crap you keep describing it in pejorative terms, without explaining why it is supposedly so bad. The only thing I can see is you mentioning "races breed insular teamwork". Do you have any evidence that races actually slow down progress, or is it just that you find the idea of them distasteful? And I'll ask again, what has competition (there being races) have to do with ideology?
- da_chicken 9y ago
  > What is the problem with there being a race element as well? What about competition makes it some universal good? The entire field of game theory exists because direct competition creates paradoxes and dilemmas, and cooperation can result in greater rewards for everyone involved. More specifically, doesn't anybody else remember the numerous scientific misconduct scandals that have plagued China? In their race to be first they've been willing to sacrifice research integrity to get there. When we see 40% of biomedical papers from China having problems (http://retractionwatch.com/2017/05/18/four-10-biomedical-papers-tainted-misconduct-chinese-scientists-say/ http://retractionwatch.com/2017/05/18/four-10-biomedical-pap...) I'm not entirely sure I'd trust their result claims.
  - jamesrcole 9y ago
    > What about competition makes it some universal good? You're criticising a strawman. Nobody said it was a universal good. I said it was unavoidable (it is intrinsic to the research process), and I said (in various comments) that it's a good thing (i.e. a net positive), including that there's clear historical evidence of this.
    - da_chicken 9y ago
      > I said it was unavoidable (it is intrinsic to the research process) No, it isn't. It's intrinsic to our research culture and that's wildly different. Look, competition gets us things like Microsoft Windows and iOS. Cooperation gets us things like BSD and Linux. Competition gets us the Google Play App store. Cooperation gets us the Debian repository. > and I said (in various comments) that it's a good thing (i.e. a net positive), including that there's clear historical evidence of this. Except you don't cite anything. What about the fact that essentially nobody does repeat experiments because they're all busy racing for original research? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis) What about the fact that people often select studies based on what will attraction attention, rather than what will actually best advance the field. Boring and uninteresting but extremely important research topics get ignored because they don't result in glory for the university or researcher. We're emphasizing the importance of breakthroughs over incremental research while simultaneously not reproducing those studies to confirm their findings! That is how a culture of competition over cooperation in research and science harms our ability to solve problems and conduct research.
loceng 9y ago
The motivation comes from seeing or experience loved ones you know suffering, up to dying, from cancer - and perhaps from seeing the barbaric feeling treatments that exist for cancer currently. Edit: I suppose having races is positive hype-marketing machine, hopefully playfully tapping into our dopamine reward systems.
- IntronExon 9y ago
  Exactly, we’ve all been affected in some way by cancer, no need for a race against anything other than cancer itself.
  - loceng 9y ago
    Well put.
daxorid 9y ago
> treating cancer is insufficient motivation The fact that the US unnecessarily hamstrings cancer research over dubious moral qualms clearly indicates that yes, treating cancer is itself insufficient motivation in this country.
- IntronExon 9y ago
  What dubious moral qualms are you referring to?
  - vkou 9y ago
    Things like requiring drug companies to conclusively prove that their treatments actually work and don't kill people when used as intended.
    - IntronExon 9y ago
      How monstrous! I too yearn for the halcyon days of thalidomide.
JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> You’re selling both the motivations of researchers, and the practical rewards of that research short You're selling the evidence short [1][2]. Commercial, political and basic research opportunities compete for resources from the same well. Competition increases the tap to basic research. That, in turn, increases output. (Up to a point [3].) [1] http://www.jstor.org/stable/2094753?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents http://www.jstor.org/stable/2094753?seq=1#page_scan_tab_cont... [2] http://www.mba.intercol.edu/Entrepreneurship/UT%20Computer%20Science%20Course/Simple_Economics_Basic_Research.pdf http://www.mba.intercol.edu/Entrepreneurship/UT%20Computer%2... [3] http://eprints.rclis.org/23682/1/Current-socio-published-non-Sage-format.pdf http://eprints.rclis.org/23682/1/Current-socio-published-non...
realitygrill 9y ago
As for the motivations of researchers: If any student comes to me and says he wants to be useful to mankind and go into research to alleviate human suffering, I advise him to go into charity instead. Research wants real egotists who seek their own pleasure and satisfaction, but find it in solving the puzzles of nature. --Albert Szent-Györgyi My [indefensible] impression is that altruistic culture is a strong part of the reason why the quality of biomedical researchers is so poor, and cancer research funding is so often near-fraudulent.
- musage 9y ago
  "Research" doesn't want anything, and if that guy wants that, he should make a good case for it. Personally, I find this has the priorities much more in line: > Our time is distinguished by wonderful achievements in the fields of scientific understanding and the technical application of those insights. Who would not be cheered by this? But let us not forget that human knowledge and skills alone cannot lead humanity to a happy and dignified life. Humanity has every reason to place the proclaimers of high moral standards and values above the discoverers of objective truth. What humanity owes to personalities like Buddha, Moses, and Jesus ranks for me higher than all the achievements of the enquiring and constructive mind. What these blessed men have given us we must guard and try to keep alive with all our strength if humanity is not to lose its dignity, the security of its existence, and its joy in living. -- Albert Einstein > My [indefensible] impression is that altruistic culture is a strong part of the reason why the quality of biomedical researchers is so poor, and cancer research funding is so often near-fraudulent. Indefensible means you're not prepared to offer any elaboration at all? What's the line of reasoning here? Nevermind evidence, but you have to have more than just the claim. And what is fraudulent funding? If all people involved were "too altruistic", would anyone ever make sloppy research to grab funding, around a subject involving so much suffering?
tooltalk 9y ago
Sure, altruistic motives and races aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. Their ends goals are to find cure for cancer, but researchers should be able to use different, competing approaches to find the best solution to the problem.