3 ms·
That's a tough questions. When you put it like that, no, obviously not, or at least not always. On the other hand, a lot of academia is predicated on the idea
by mattkrause 7y ago
That's a tough questions.
When you put it like that, no, obviously not, or at least not always.
On the other hand, a lot of academia is predicated on the idea that the quality and impact of research and by extension, the researcher, is immediately apparent, so we're "correctly" selecting and rewarding the best people. Stuff like this suggests that we're not, and the moves towards relentless up-or-out pipelines (with fixed times at each stage) might be counterproductive.
- dekhn 7y agoI think there are many things that, when published in the context of the day, are not distinguishable from other work in terms of "Nobelity". It seems like most impact is measured decades after an initial technology is discovered, reported, and published. CRISPR seems like a relative outlier (once the basic technique was perfected, it went from "nothing" to "everything" in just a few years, and has now completely changed the nature of biomedical research).
- lonelappde 7y agoCRISPR isn't an outlier, it's a product of our modern fast moving tech world. If CRISPR were invented in 1950, all else equal,it would have moved much more slowly.