4 ms·

> The academics McMullen contacted at other U.S. research universities told him they had funding for their own research, but not for his. But Bradforth had a di

by O_H_E 6y ago

> The academics McMullen contacted at other U.S. research universities told him they had funding for their own research, but not for his. But Bradforth had a different response. > "He said, 'I don't have funding for your idea but if you come over here we can write a funding proposal together,'" said McMullen, who at the time was finishing up his undergraduate studies... > Bradforth not only helped McMullen secure funding, prioritizing it for National Science Foundation support over continuing other projects, but he also cobbled together an international team of scientists and arranged his sabbatical to oversee and participate in the main experiments. He also became McMullen's Ph.D. adviser. Man you gotta love such an awesome prof

rapjr9 6y ago
> The academics McMullen contacted at other U.S. research universities told him they had funding for their own research, but not for his. This seems like it could be a massive problem with research. It means that grad students don't get to develop their own ideas, they have to work on their advisors research. Admittedly there are a lot of people who have trouble coming up with their own ideas, but this basically seems like a suppression of independent thinking.
- mannykannot 6y ago
  > ...but this basically seems like a suppression of independent thinking. The independent thinking here got funded. That's not evidence of suppression - quite the opposite, in fact.
- setr 6y ago
  It seems to me that an advisor is in a better position to determine "potentially interesting results" than a grad student is; science in the extreme should be ideally purely content-based (the proposal alone), but reality is that its not. I imagine you're mostly funding humans (who have provided a rough, or even detailed plan; which will likely be subject to modification or analysis as the project evolves), in which case experience is a strong heuristic. And presumably, if you can't convince any possible advisors that your research is "potentially interesting", it seems unlikely you'd convince the funding department, or even should be able to convince them (who presumably have limited knowledge of the precise area of focus -- I imagine they rely on the deeper specialist input). Of course, if you can convince an advisor that its potentially interesting, there should ideally be nothing stopping further development (eg no one should be claiming that it originated from a student, so it can't possibly be valid -- it's been validated by the advisor, so that's the heuristic to now beat)

by O_H_E 6y ago

rapjr9 6y ago

> The academics McMullen contacted at other U.S. research universities told him they had funding for their own research, but not for his. This seems like it could be a massive problem with research. It means that grad students don't get to develop their own ideas, they have to work on their advisors research. Admittedly there are a lot of people who have trouble coming up with their own ideas, but this basically seems like a suppression of independent thinking.

mannykannot 6y ago
> ...but this basically seems like a suppression of independent thinking. The independent thinking here got funded. That's not evidence of suppression - quite the opposite, in fact.
setr 6y ago
It seems to me that an advisor is in a better position to determine "potentially interesting results" than a grad student is; science in the extreme should be ideally purely content-based (the proposal alone), but reality is that its not. I imagine you're mostly funding humans (who have provided a rough, or even detailed plan; which will likely be subject to modification or analysis as the project evolves), in which case experience is a strong heuristic. And presumably, if you can't convince any possible advisors that your research is "potentially interesting", it seems unlikely you'd convince the funding department, or even should be able to convince them (who presumably have limited knowledge of the precise area of focus -- I imagine they rely on the deeper specialist input). Of course, if you can convince an advisor that its potentially interesting, there should ideally be nothing stopping further development (eg no one should be claiming that it originated from a student, so it can't possibly be valid -- it's been validated by the advisor, so that's the heuristic to now beat)