9 ms·

I think her more important point is that to be a "successful," scientist, you have to be a domineering, workaholic, self-promoter with connections. Perhaps the

I think her more important point is that to be a "successful," scientist, you have to be a domineering, workaholic, self-promoter with connections. Perhaps there are other ways to do science that don't push out brilliant people who want broader lives.

yummyfajitas 16y ago
I really doubt that there is a place in the world for lazy, unambitious scientists. Science productivity is nonlinear. Simple numerical example: if it takes you 20 hours/week just to keep up with the literature, teaching duties, etc, a scientist who works 35 hours/week is only half as productive as one who works 50 hours/week. Additionally, science is cumulative. Those extra hours you put in build up your skills. This means that not only does the 50 hour/week scientist produce 2x as much as the 35 hour/week scientist, but his/her skills grow faster. So after a year, the 50 hour/week scientist not only has twice as many productive hours as the 35 hour/week scientist, but he/she also produces more per hour. You may view the character traits exhibited by successful scientists as low status or unappealing. But that doesn't mean they are unnecessary.
- dgabriel 16y ago
  We like to think of the field of science as a meritocracy, but it is fraught with politics, trendiness, and other human pitfalls. I have known FAR more post-docs who burnt out than succeeded, and not because they were lazy or unintelligent. Interesting that you would categorize them as such. This is something that affects men and women. > You may view the character traits exhibited by successful scientists as low status or unappealing. This doesn't make any sense, except as a pot-shot. Status is what it's all about in science. Brilliant, low status people are failures.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    I said hard work/ambition are necessary, not that they are sufficient.
- arethuza 16y ago
  "Science productivity is nonlinear." - any citations for that?
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    As I'm sure you are aware, it would be extremely difficult to define "science productivity" as an objectively measurable quantity. So no, neither I nor anyone else have citations related to this claim. My claim is based primarily on inductive reasoning and personal experience. I know quite a few good scientists, none of whom have any semblance of a work life balance. And when I was a scientist, the job was as all consuming as doing a startup.
    - arethuza 16y ago
      "it would be extremely difficult to define "science productivity" as an objectively measurable quantity" Stepping back from the original article, what I would say is that a lot of the problems in academia are perhaps caused by inappropriate rewards systems based on the idea that academic research productivity can be measured over reasonably short timescales. I'd actually be more in favor of much less overt short term performance evaluation for academics and accepting that some will, undoubtedly, squander this privilege while others would, I believe, more than reward society for this trust. Of course, this would probably be unacceptable politically as the emphasis there is often to minimize the negatives rather than to maximize the positives.
      - yummyfajitas 16y ago
        The problem is that the way the academic system is structured, the negatives are large and the positives are small. Take the author of this article - she was mistakenly given tenure, and she squandered 10-15 years of salary + unspecified severance. The solution is simple - eliminate tenure. Then you can take a risk on a promising scientist - worst case, you fire him/her in a few years.
        tensor 16y ago
- pfedor 16y ago
  I don't know man. Everything you say about productivity in science rings equally as true for computer programming. And yet it is possible to be a reasonably happy, reasonably productive software engineer and never work nights or weekends. Why is science fundamentally different? Is there less good work which needs to be done and can be done by not-super-brilliant people in science than there is in software engineerintg?
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    Is there less good work which needs to be done and can be done by not-super-brilliant people in science than there is in software engineerintg? You nailed it. CRUD apps have considerable value. Low end theorems/experiments are almost worthless.
    - _delirium 16y ago
      If you peruse a typical conference proceedings or journal issue, "low end theorems/experiments" in the sense of slogging away on incremental work is almost all of what scientists do. The big stuff is pretty unusual.
      - dagw 16y ago
        But even those "low end theorems/experiments" are generally novel and build on fairly cutting edge work. On the other hand you can pick up an Introduction to RoR book and have a successful career without ever venturing outside what that book teaches. There are few science jobs that require no knowledge beyond what you'll find in a first year chemistry book.
        madcaptenor 16y ago
        I'm a bit suspicious of your claim about it being that easy to have a career in tech. (But also a bit intrigued -- I'm in academia and looking for a plan B, given the state of the job market...)
- flatline 16y ago
  I agree that science (or any creative) productivity is non-linear, but you go on to give a linear example of 30 hours of work being worth twice as much as 15 hours, so I'm not quite sure what the final point is. An obsessive/single-track mindset is the most striking thing to me about this type of work, which probably does require more than 37.5 hours each week to maintain, but perhaps not every week, and almost certainly not in the 80-100 hr/week range that some young researches tend to work.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    The example I gave was productivity(hours) = max(hours-20, 0). This is nonlinear. My second paragraph explained how the gap between the 20 hours/week scientist and the 40 hours/week scientist grows with time.
- mitko 16y ago
  >> Science productivity is nonlinear. Maybe you are right, if you try to do it the way the majority does it - brute-forcing and less-efficiently. As a counter example, a friend of mine was able to graduate a Math PhD from MIT in 2.5 years, and at the same time using every vacation to the max to do mountaineering. One of his tactics is that whenever he does math, he doesn't think about anything else - this way he is not wasting the time.
- skybrian 16y ago
  I don't understand the economics. It sounds like you're saying that there's no place in the world for a fully trained (though perhaps less ambitious than before) scientist, so it's better to start from scratch with someone new, who presumably will take many years of training to get up to speed. I don't see how we can afford such a wasteful system?
- tmachinecharmer 16y ago
  On this occasion this book makes a lot of sense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_%28book%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_%28book%29 What you provided above is its excellent summery! :)
- dkarl 16y ago
  I really doubt that there is a place in the world for lazy, unambitious scientists. This is why very little scientific work is properly replicated and there are big distortions in the literature caused by scientists selectively publishing results that will seem fashionable in the current climate of opinion -- confirm a theory as it rises, and attack it as it peaks. There's an element of "timing the market" when publishing results. It would be a big improvement if there were lots of competent scientists with secure jobs working a normal work week and publishing results that weren't distorted by the pressures that their ambitious careerist colleagues are subject to. They could try to replicate results and not worry if the answers they get don't further their careers. Why in the world wouldn't that be a good thing?
mbateman 16y ago
I thought the most significant bit was when she lost confidence. Once you accept notion that you're incapable of coming up with good, original ideas, why be in academia anymore? Of course you're going to be bored, ignored by "the system," and start shifting your time and energy to other things. While there are no doubt bad things about networking in academia, the good thing is that original thinking and research tends to be rewarded. Once you've given up on that, all you have left is the bad stuff. There was a significant disconnect between her story and her conclusions (though her conclusions were mixed).
- dgabriel 16y ago
  She did accept blame for her attitude. I think this is correct, though. If you don't think you're creative enough, you might as well take your PhD and teach at a community college. Or become a science writer. I do think she has an interesting point about the "lone wolf," approach to science. For the most part, modern science is an inherently collaborative process, unless you're a star who likes to gloss over the contributions made by the underlings in your lab.
  - lethain 16y ago
    The later being the "lone wolfram" approach.
- arethuza 16y ago
  "Once you accept notion that you're incapable of coming up with good, original ideas, why be in academia anymore?" I guess its the same dilemma faced by lots of people who love to write code - eventually most organizations expect you to stop doing the "grunt work" and move up to take a more management focus. Certainly 90% of people I knew in the UK in academia who were at Professor level were there primarily because of their leadership skills rather than any innately brilliant piece of work they had done as an individual. Some people just don't want to make that step from doing to managing and in academia, as in many environments, the push is probably "up or out".
  - 16y ago

yummyfajitas 16y ago

I really doubt that there is a place in the world for lazy, unambitious scientists. Science productivity is nonlinear. Simple numerical example: if it takes you 20 hours/week just to keep up with the literature, teaching duties, etc, a scientist who works 35 hours/week is only half as productive as one who works 50 hours/week. Additionally, science is cumulative. Those extra hours you put in build up your skills. This means that not only does the 50 hour/week scientist produce 2x as much as the 35 hour/week scientist, but his/her skills grow faster. So after a year, the 50 hour/week scientist not only has twice as many productive hours as the 35 hour/week scientist, but he/she also produces more per hour. You may view the character traits exhibited by successful scientists as low status or unappealing. But that doesn't mean they are unnecessary.

dgabriel 16y ago
We like to think of the field of science as a meritocracy, but it is fraught with politics, trendiness, and other human pitfalls. I have known FAR more post-docs who burnt out than succeeded, and not because they were lazy or unintelligent. Interesting that you would categorize them as such. This is something that affects men and women. > You may view the character traits exhibited by successful scientists as low status or unappealing. This doesn't make any sense, except as a pot-shot. Status is what it's all about in science. Brilliant, low status people are failures.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  I said hard work/ambition are necessary, not that they are sufficient.
arethuza 16y ago
"Science productivity is nonlinear." - any citations for that?
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  As I'm sure you are aware, it would be extremely difficult to define "science productivity" as an objectively measurable quantity. So no, neither I nor anyone else have citations related to this claim. My claim is based primarily on inductive reasoning and personal experience. I know quite a few good scientists, none of whom have any semblance of a work life balance. And when I was a scientist, the job was as all consuming as doing a startup.
  - arethuza 16y ago
    "it would be extremely difficult to define "science productivity" as an objectively measurable quantity" Stepping back from the original article, what I would say is that a lot of the problems in academia are perhaps caused by inappropriate rewards systems based on the idea that academic research productivity can be measured over reasonably short timescales. I'd actually be more in favor of much less overt short term performance evaluation for academics and accepting that some will, undoubtedly, squander this privilege while others would, I believe, more than reward society for this trust. Of course, this would probably be unacceptable politically as the emphasis there is often to minimize the negatives rather than to maximize the positives.
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      The problem is that the way the academic system is structured, the negatives are large and the positives are small. Take the author of this article - she was mistakenly given tenure, and she squandered 10-15 years of salary + unspecified severance. The solution is simple - eliminate tenure. Then you can take a risk on a promising scientist - worst case, you fire him/her in a few years.
      - tensor 16y ago
pfedor 16y ago
I don't know man. Everything you say about productivity in science rings equally as true for computer programming. And yet it is possible to be a reasonably happy, reasonably productive software engineer and never work nights or weekends. Why is science fundamentally different? Is there less good work which needs to be done and can be done by not-super-brilliant people in science than there is in software engineerintg?
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  Is there less good work which needs to be done and can be done by not-super-brilliant people in science than there is in software engineerintg? You nailed it. CRUD apps have considerable value. Low end theorems/experiments are almost worthless.
  - _delirium 16y ago
    If you peruse a typical conference proceedings or journal issue, "low end theorems/experiments" in the sense of slogging away on incremental work is almost all of what scientists do. The big stuff is pretty unusual.
    - dagw 16y ago
      But even those "low end theorems/experiments" are generally novel and build on fairly cutting edge work. On the other hand you can pick up an Introduction to RoR book and have a successful career without ever venturing outside what that book teaches. There are few science jobs that require no knowledge beyond what you'll find in a first year chemistry book.
      - madcaptenor 16y ago
        I'm a bit suspicious of your claim about it being that easy to have a career in tech. (But also a bit intrigued -- I'm in academia and looking for a plan B, given the state of the job market...)
flatline 16y ago
I agree that science (or any creative) productivity is non-linear, but you go on to give a linear example of 30 hours of work being worth twice as much as 15 hours, so I'm not quite sure what the final point is. An obsessive/single-track mindset is the most striking thing to me about this type of work, which probably does require more than 37.5 hours each week to maintain, but perhaps not every week, and almost certainly not in the 80-100 hr/week range that some young researches tend to work.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  The example I gave was productivity(hours) = max(hours-20, 0). This is nonlinear. My second paragraph explained how the gap between the 20 hours/week scientist and the 40 hours/week scientist grows with time.
mitko 16y ago
>> Science productivity is nonlinear. Maybe you are right, if you try to do it the way the majority does it - brute-forcing and less-efficiently. As a counter example, a friend of mine was able to graduate a Math PhD from MIT in 2.5 years, and at the same time using every vacation to the max to do mountaineering. One of his tactics is that whenever he does math, he doesn't think about anything else - this way he is not wasting the time.
skybrian 16y ago
I don't understand the economics. It sounds like you're saying that there's no place in the world for a fully trained (though perhaps less ambitious than before) scientist, so it's better to start from scratch with someone new, who presumably will take many years of training to get up to speed. I don't see how we can afford such a wasteful system?
tmachinecharmer 16y ago
On this occasion this book makes a lot of sense http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_%28book%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outliers_%28book%29 What you provided above is its excellent summery! :)
dkarl 16y ago
I really doubt that there is a place in the world for lazy, unambitious scientists. This is why very little scientific work is properly replicated and there are big distortions in the literature caused by scientists selectively publishing results that will seem fashionable in the current climate of opinion -- confirm a theory as it rises, and attack it as it peaks. There's an element of "timing the market" when publishing results. It would be a big improvement if there were lots of competent scientists with secure jobs working a normal work week and publishing results that weren't distorted by the pressures that their ambitious careerist colleagues are subject to. They could try to replicate results and not worry if the answers they get don't further their careers. Why in the world wouldn't that be a good thing?

mbateman 16y ago

I thought the most significant bit was when she lost confidence. Once you accept notion that you're incapable of coming up with good, original ideas, why be in academia anymore? Of course you're going to be bored, ignored by "the system," and start shifting your time and energy to other things. While there are no doubt bad things about networking in academia, the good thing is that original thinking and research tends to be rewarded. Once you've given up on that, all you have left is the bad stuff. There was a significant disconnect between her story and her conclusions (though her conclusions were mixed).

dgabriel 16y ago
She did accept blame for her attitude. I think this is correct, though. If you don't think you're creative enough, you might as well take your PhD and teach at a community college. Or become a science writer. I do think she has an interesting point about the "lone wolf," approach to science. For the most part, modern science is an inherently collaborative process, unless you're a star who likes to gloss over the contributions made by the underlings in your lab.
- lethain 16y ago
  The later being the "lone wolfram" approach.
arethuza 16y ago
"Once you accept notion that you're incapable of coming up with good, original ideas, why be in academia anymore?" I guess its the same dilemma faced by lots of people who love to write code - eventually most organizations expect you to stop doing the "grunt work" and move up to take a more management focus. Certainly 90% of people I knew in the UK in academia who were at Professor level were there primarily because of their leadership skills rather than any innately brilliant piece of work they had done as an individual. Some people just don't want to make that step from doing to managing and in academia, as in many environments, the push is probably "up or out".
- 16y ago