4 ms·

> Other research areas could be more important to progress right now and we only have so many scientists available to do the work. Allocating those scientists

by beojan 6y ago

> Other research areas could be more important to progress right now and we only have so many scientists available to do the work. Allocating those scientists to research areas is an incredibly hard task, but it’s a necessary one. That's not really how it works. People work on things they're interested in, not what they get assigned to.

thysultan 6y ago
>People work on things they're interested in That's not how reality works out to be.
rubidium 6y ago
That’s... a bit to simplistic of an understanding. As a researcher, there are many problems I could find interesting and get passionate about working on, either with the right colleagues, funding, world implications, etc... The scientist oblivious to the world and only interested in their little niche is not the majority. Give a problem funding at the early stage of careers (grad school, new tenure grants) and it gets worked on and some people get super passionate.
- beojan 6y ago
  If you're talking about allocating existing scientists, it's a bit late for funding something at the point where someone is deciding what to do in grad school (or even undergrad, in the European system). kd5bjo seemed to be talking about allocating people to entirely different fields which they likely have no existing experience in.
  - kd5bjo 6y ago
    We’re in a capitalist system, so I had assumed that allocation would happen via the free job market: people with money write job descriptions for scientists to work on particular things, and the scientists decide which of those offers to pursue. Central control of this sort of thing hasn’t historically worked out well (though I may be biased on this point from growing up in the US). As for switching fields, one of the key parts of scientific training is how to learn things, so scientists have a better chance of successfully changing felds than many other people. It also isn’t necessarily as big a leap as physics to biochem, like you suggested in another comment. Moving from theoretical particle physics to tokamak design seems like it should be doable, for instance.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
effie 6y ago
People are "interested" to work on things partially due to the fact there is money available to work on those things.
wolfgke 6y ago
> That's not really how it works. People work on things they're interested in, not what they get assigned to. You have no idea how management and funding of large-scale research projects works.
- Koshkin 6y ago
  Indeed, government-funded national labs are highly bureaucratic institutions.
- beojan 6y ago
  At the level of picking a field, people absolutely work on what they are interested in (and have expertise in). You're not going to get particle physicists working on organic chemistry just because you've "allocated" them there (and they wouldn't be trained in it anyway).
  - wolfgke 6y ago
    > You're not going to get particle physicists working on organic chemistry just because you've "allocated" them there If I consider what kinds of crappy jobs some excellent physicists who could not find a position in research had to take, I am not so sure. The truth in my opinion thus rather is: Because, as you wrote, "they wouldn't be trained in it anyway", they won't be allocated for "organic chemistry" in your example. On the other hand, if they were, I really believe that they would prefer this job over the one that they had to take.
dtech 6y ago
There's not really a million [1] lawyers because all million have a passion for corporate law, its also because it pays well [1] https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/market_research/total-national-lawyer-population-1878-2019.pdf https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/m...

by beojan 6y ago

thysultan 6y ago

>People work on things they're interested in That's not how reality works out to be.

rubidium 6y ago

That’s... a bit to simplistic of an understanding. As a researcher, there are many problems I could find interesting and get passionate about working on, either with the right colleagues, funding, world implications, etc... The scientist oblivious to the world and only interested in their little niche is not the majority. Give a problem funding at the early stage of careers (grad school, new tenure grants) and it gets worked on and some people get super passionate.

beojan 6y ago
If you're talking about allocating existing scientists, it's a bit late for funding something at the point where someone is deciding what to do in grad school (or even undergrad, in the European system). kd5bjo seemed to be talking about allocating people to entirely different fields which they likely have no existing experience in.
- kd5bjo 6y ago
  We’re in a capitalist system, so I had assumed that allocation would happen via the free job market: people with money write job descriptions for scientists to work on particular things, and the scientists decide which of those offers to pursue. Central control of this sort of thing hasn’t historically worked out well (though I may be biased on this point from growing up in the US). As for switching fields, one of the key parts of scientific training is how to learn things, so scientists have a better chance of successfully changing felds than many other people. It also isn’t necessarily as big a leap as physics to biochem, like you suggested in another comment. Moving from theoretical particle physics to tokamak design seems like it should be doable, for instance.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

effie 6y ago

People are "interested" to work on things partially due to the fact there is money available to work on those things.

wolfgke 6y ago

> That's not really how it works. People work on things they're interested in, not what they get assigned to. You have no idea how management and funding of large-scale research projects works.

Koshkin 6y ago
Indeed, government-funded national labs are highly bureaucratic institutions.
beojan 6y ago
At the level of picking a field, people absolutely work on what they are interested in (and have expertise in). You're not going to get particle physicists working on organic chemistry just because you've "allocated" them there (and they wouldn't be trained in it anyway).
- wolfgke 6y ago
  > You're not going to get particle physicists working on organic chemistry just because you've "allocated" them there If I consider what kinds of crappy jobs some excellent physicists who could not find a position in research had to take, I am not so sure. The truth in my opinion thus rather is: Because, as you wrote, "they wouldn't be trained in it anyway", they won't be allocated for "organic chemistry" in your example. On the other hand, if they were, I really believe that they would prefer this job over the one that they had to take.

dtech 6y ago

There's not really a million [1] lawyers because all million have a passion for corporate law, its also because it pays well [1] https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/market_research/total-national-lawyer-population-1878-2019.pdf https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/m...