4 ms·

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 pe

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?
    - aaavl2821 9y ago
      There are a ton of people researching cancer and fighting for cures, and doing so solely because they have lost loved ones or are passionate about the science But that is not enough. Cancer is quite a formidable foe. one researcher in a lab can only do so much. as you say, science is collaborative. but getting medicines approved requires more than just government or philanthropic funding. it requires collaboaration with for-profit entities: venture funding, and big pharma r&d budgets. that money requires profitability. and in business, speed matters. competition can be very healthy in regards to pushing researchers to the next level oncology is one of the most funded areas of research not just because it impacts a lot of people. it is also one of the most profitable. fda incentives reduce the cost of drug development, and drug developers can charge high prices because they are creating a lot of clinical value. this is perhaps a cynical viewpoint, but if you look at the leading causes of death in the US, and the diseases with the most VC / pharma funding, only cancer is in both groups as further evidence of the importance of profits in funding decisions: cancer consistently ranks in the top two disease areas in terms of VC and pharma investment. it receives about double the next fields (infectious disease) in terms of pharma investment, VC investment and FDA approvals however, cancer funding is in third place in terms of NIH funding, with roughly 1/3 the funding of neuro / neuropsych disease and less funding than infectious disease. cancer is well funded largely because of profit motives, and profit-driven groups are the ones that get cancer drugs out of the lab and to patients. not ideal, but thats the status quo http://newbio.tech/blog/vc_basics_1.html http://newbio.tech/blog/vc_basics_1.html
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.

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?
  - aaavl2821 9y ago
    There are a ton of people researching cancer and fighting for cures, and doing so solely because they have lost loved ones or are passionate about the science But that is not enough. Cancer is quite a formidable foe. one researcher in a lab can only do so much. as you say, science is collaborative. but getting medicines approved requires more than just government or philanthropic funding. it requires collaboaration with for-profit entities: venture funding, and big pharma r&d budgets. that money requires profitability. and in business, speed matters. competition can be very healthy in regards to pushing researchers to the next level oncology is one of the most funded areas of research not just because it impacts a lot of people. it is also one of the most profitable. fda incentives reduce the cost of drug development, and drug developers can charge high prices because they are creating a lot of clinical value. this is perhaps a cynical viewpoint, but if you look at the leading causes of death in the US, and the diseases with the most VC / pharma funding, only cancer is in both groups as further evidence of the importance of profits in funding decisions: cancer consistently ranks in the top two disease areas in terms of VC and pharma investment. it receives about double the next fields (infectious disease) in terms of pharma investment, VC investment and FDA approvals however, cancer funding is in third place in terms of NIH funding, with roughly 1/3 the funding of neuro / neuropsych disease and less funding than infectious disease. cancer is well funded largely because of profit motives, and profit-driven groups are the ones that get cancer drugs out of the lab and to patients. not ideal, but thats the status quo http://newbio.tech/blog/vc_basics_1.html http://newbio.tech/blog/vc_basics_1.html

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.