3 ms·

I think it is a fair question how to organize science for best results (maximum productivity ?). I am no fan of pressure to apply for grants, which is particula

I think it is a fair question how to organize science for best results (maximum productivity ?). I am no fan of pressure to apply for grants, which is particularly strong in the US. Also the amount of pressure/effort needed to get permanent/tenured position is very large. While this is clearly a big drain on people, and some people cannot handle it, either because they don't play the game well, or just live/work balance, or politics, but I think it certainly forces people to work more/harder. If we make things more relaxed, I'm sure that will make life easier for many scientists, but I would think the overall productivity will go down. I don't honestly know whether that's right path or not.

gregors 6y ago
The quest for "maximum productivity" is the root cause for all of this. We need more artists and academics and less capitalists. Short-sighted thinking with profits being the end goal doesn't make for good science, good engineering or long term growth. The quest for productivity is a highly flawed path.
- Frost1x 6y ago
  Productivity in this context is also defined by what makes the most wealthy and powerful more wealthy and powerful. The old argument is that capitalism as is aligns with the people so when it benefits you benefit. As businesses optimize out those pesky alignment costs with society, this becomes less true.
thisiszilff 6y ago
I think the biggest question here is to what extent can productivity in basic research be quantified. Or, what are the value to failed experiments and explorations of "out there" ideas? Basic research is tricky because it is at the periphery of human knowledge, so getting our bearings there is difficult. The focus should, you are right, be on "overall productivity" and not on individual productivity, but the question is how do we make decisions about individuals based on overall productivity goals.
atmosx 6y ago
Productivity is a metric and the moment you use for _whatever_ will be gamed. This is just the natural course of things. The main problem is that productivity, when it comes to research, is a lousy metric. Eventually productivity will be linked to "the market", because that's what matters right? Would Riemann frame that hypothesis had he been driven by "productivity" ? I wonder.
PartiallyTyped 6y ago
I don't think it forces people to work harder, for me at least, it is a deterrent. As a master's student, I am not willing to get into the rat race that is academia with other people dictating what I should do research in because that is the current hot topic. I would rather work and do research in my own time on topics that I like at the pace that I dictate. I should note that I am able to follow that approach because my areas of interest do not require lab equipment besides a workstation and notepads to scribble things on, my research is in ML and it won't yield anything remotely as ground breaking as Dr. Karikó's.
lrem 6y ago
Now, how would you tell if overall productivity went down? The problem at hand is that we measure "overall productivity" via the proxy of "the number of articles a panel of other scientists considered interesting enough". Everyone who has dipped a toe in academia can tell you how bad that is at even remotely correlating with producing actual value. But, the actual value of a piece of research often comes to light decades after it has been first published. Rutherford has been at it since 1911, but we only got first value out of his theory in 1940s. Man-millenia have been invested in the meantime. Would this be any better, if all of them had to spend half of their time working on securing funding?
ta988 6y ago
The productivity going down is a good thing in my opinion, thats how you can free some effort so you can focus it on quality.
throwaway316943 6y ago
Put meaningful bounties on the things you want solved.
- bernulli 6y ago
  The thing is that we often don't even know it. Einstein did not solve a pressing problem with his theories of relativity.

gregors 6y ago

The quest for "maximum productivity" is the root cause for all of this. We need more artists and academics and less capitalists. Short-sighted thinking with profits being the end goal doesn't make for good science, good engineering or long term growth. The quest for productivity is a highly flawed path.

Frost1x 6y ago
Productivity in this context is also defined by what makes the most wealthy and powerful more wealthy and powerful. The old argument is that capitalism as is aligns with the people so when it benefits you benefit. As businesses optimize out those pesky alignment costs with society, this becomes less true.

thisiszilff 6y ago

I think the biggest question here is to what extent can productivity in basic research be quantified. Or, what are the value to failed experiments and explorations of "out there" ideas? Basic research is tricky because it is at the periphery of human knowledge, so getting our bearings there is difficult. The focus should, you are right, be on "overall productivity" and not on individual productivity, but the question is how do we make decisions about individuals based on overall productivity goals.

atmosx 6y ago

Productivity is a metric and the moment you use for _whatever_ will be gamed. This is just the natural course of things. The main problem is that productivity, when it comes to research, is a lousy metric. Eventually productivity will be linked to "the market", because that's what matters right? Would Riemann frame that hypothesis had he been driven by "productivity" ? I wonder.

PartiallyTyped 6y ago

I don't think it forces people to work harder, for me at least, it is a deterrent. As a master's student, I am not willing to get into the rat race that is academia with other people dictating what I should do research in because that is the current hot topic. I would rather work and do research in my own time on topics that I like at the pace that I dictate. I should note that I am able to follow that approach because my areas of interest do not require lab equipment besides a workstation and notepads to scribble things on, my research is in ML and it won't yield anything remotely as ground breaking as Dr. Karikó's.

lrem 6y ago

Now, how would you tell if overall productivity went down? The problem at hand is that we measure "overall productivity" via the proxy of "the number of articles a panel of other scientists considered interesting enough". Everyone who has dipped a toe in academia can tell you how bad that is at even remotely correlating with producing actual value. But, the actual value of a piece of research often comes to light decades after it has been first published. Rutherford has been at it since 1911, but we only got first value out of his theory in 1940s. Man-millenia have been invested in the meantime. Would this be any better, if all of them had to spend half of their time working on securing funding?

ta988 6y ago

The productivity going down is a good thing in my opinion, thats how you can free some effort so you can focus it on quality.

throwaway316943 6y ago

Put meaningful bounties on the things you want solved.

bernulli 6y ago
The thing is that we often don't even know it. Einstein did not solve a pressing problem with his theories of relativity.