3 ms·

One explanation that I've heard (often in terms of global south v. global north) is to prevent more well-funded labs to quickly mirror your setup/method and, gi

One explanation that I've heard (often in terms of global south v. global north) is to prevent more well-funded labs to quickly mirror your setup/method and, given their higher means/staff, deplete that line of research leaving your lab with no publications, patents, etc. and therefore no money. Science as a whole may benefit, but individual scientists still usually appreciate keeping their jobs.

kzrdude 7y ago
What you describe has a perfect analogy in how established actors squeeze out smaller actors in a race to the bottom in other areas of the economy. So it's certainly great that we don't have that in science, yet..
asdff 7y ago
Big labs don't work any faster than small labs, they just have more people to chase more projects; generally it's the same amount of people per project as a small lab. Chances are if you got scooped it was just because someone got started with the idea before you did. After all, the future directions at the end of the paper are usually active research by the time you are drafting and submitting for review. Getting 'scooped' isn't so bad in biology at least. If you were thinking about XYZ and someone publishes X and Z, great. Cite that paper, now you don't have to bother so much validating X and Z and can focus on strengthening your Y argument or adding argument W to your paper.
- JorgeGT 7y ago
  > Big labs don't work any faster than small labs Not true, at least in my field. If $BigLab can throw 100k CPU cores at a simulation it is going to finish way faster than $SmallLab 1k simulation. If $BigLab builds 10 dedicated test rigs they are going to finish that parametric study way waster than $SmallLab with 1 shared test rig. Getting scooped may not a big problem for papers (except when you start getting rejections because lack of novelty), but it is a big problem for patents, licenses, royalties and such things that allow small labs to survive when their governments have little to no money to spend.

kzrdude 7y ago

What you describe has a perfect analogy in how established actors squeeze out smaller actors in a race to the bottom in other areas of the economy. So it's certainly great that we don't have that in science, yet..

asdff 7y ago

Big labs don't work any faster than small labs, they just have more people to chase more projects; generally it's the same amount of people per project as a small lab. Chances are if you got scooped it was just because someone got started with the idea before you did. After all, the future directions at the end of the paper are usually active research by the time you are drafting and submitting for review. Getting 'scooped' isn't so bad in biology at least. If you were thinking about XYZ and someone publishes X and Z, great. Cite that paper, now you don't have to bother so much validating X and Z and can focus on strengthening your Y argument or adding argument W to your paper.

JorgeGT 7y ago
> Big labs don't work any faster than small labs Not true, at least in my field. If $BigLab can throw 100k CPU cores at a simulation it is going to finish way faster than $SmallLab 1k simulation. If $BigLab builds 10 dedicated test rigs they are going to finish that parametric study way waster than $SmallLab with 1 shared test rig. Getting scooped may not a big problem for papers (except when you start getting rejections because lack of novelty), but it is a big problem for patents, licenses, royalties and such things that allow small labs to survive when their governments have little to no money to spend.