4 ms·

There are a lot of people very interested by science but from what I read academia does not seem to be a good place to be in. That might help explaining why we

There are a lot of people very interested by science but from what I read academia does not seem to be a good place to be in. That might help explaining why we can see 'amateur scientists' coming up with interesting results.

amelius 5y ago
Do you think the existence of these amateurs will help improve the current state in academia, or will it have the opposite effect?
- treeman79 5y ago
  Look at em drive. A nonsense device that caused a LOT of people to become very good at Torsion Pendulums. Was fastening to watch ever improving builds as people tried to prove/disprove. Did em drive work out, no. But a lot did come out of the effort.
mc32 5y ago
It looks like there could be a twofold problem: Some academics are interested in pushing a particular take (agenda). This is contrary to science but often serving some social or political sentiment. Amateur scientists might lack the rigor to give their claims validity and may reach undeserved conclusions leading to misunderstanding from a part of the public who want some validation for their own beliefs.
- scottLobster 5y ago
  I'd say the root is likely much simpler: Money Getting a degree, particularly a PhD to do research, is hideously expensive in the US and rarely pays well relative to the cost, even for STEM. Science in general is underfunded IMO, and from what I'm told competition for grants can be extreme. Society says they want the next Thomas Edison but they aren't willing to fund all the other failed light bulb designs to find him. In that environment being an amateur scientist makes the most sense if you can swing it. Do something more lucrative to ensure prosperity and, if you're really passionate about something scientific and can afford the necessary equipment yourself, do it at home and blog about it. Worth remembering that prior to modern funding mechanisms a lot (most?) of science was done by the independently wealthy gentry.
  - caddemon 5y ago
    I agree competition for grants drives a lot of these problems, but getting a STEM PhD costs nothing at any remotely respectable institution. You will be spending 5+ years making less than you could, so you still may not come out ahead financially, but it's purely an opportunity cost not an actual cost. It's not uncommon either for people to bail with a free masters after 2 years. I like the idea of making money first and then pursuing research, but I think for certain fields the only way to do much of anything would be to latch on as a research volunteer to an existing lab. Because the cost to run any experiments is just way too high, particularly if you have no shared equipment to begin with. Alternatively, you could just start a PhD later in life. There are time limits on a bunch of the academic stages, but no clock really starts until after you've finished your PhD. I do think it would be a lot more comfortable to do a PhD once you've already financially established yourself, plus I think it produces a better culture when people aren't so attached to progressing up the academic ladder, like their life depends on it.
    - akiselev 5y ago
      I think you're underestimating opportunity cost and overestimating how much grant money is spent on actual science rather than overhead costs like the university's 25% cut, head count, administration, conferences, and so on. The actual numbers are staggering. When I dropped out and first moved to SV (pre facebook IPO), I lived with a Mozilla undergraduate intern who made twice what my mom made as a neuroscience postdoc with decades of experience. An engineer making mid to senior level FAANG money and investing savings in an index fund, probably makes $1 million to $2 million more over a decade. For someone who doesn't make it into a tenured position, the life time difference in earnings is depressing to think about. The barriers to entry are intimidating but not insurmountable - there are so many hidden idiosyncrasies and inefficiencies in academia that obfuscate the real cost and make it seem harder than it really is. Just look at the proliferation of hackerspaces with their capital equipment which, although not as expensive as some lab equipment, still runs in the tens of thousands per machine. It's just that we've been doing it this way for so long we can't imagine any other way.
      - 5y ago
treeman79 5y ago
A lot of “amateurs” have access to far more resources than professionals of generations past. Equipment, training, larger communities, sometimes even functional wealth. Let’s see what happens when we drop a car from a crane onto a trampoline. That’s a lot more equipment then dropping a feather and a cannon ball off a tower.

amelius 5y ago

Do you think the existence of these amateurs will help improve the current state in academia, or will it have the opposite effect?

treeman79 5y ago
Look at em drive. A nonsense device that caused a LOT of people to become very good at Torsion Pendulums. Was fastening to watch ever improving builds as people tried to prove/disprove. Did em drive work out, no. But a lot did come out of the effort.

mc32 5y ago

It looks like there could be a twofold problem: Some academics are interested in pushing a particular take (agenda). This is contrary to science but often serving some social or political sentiment. Amateur scientists might lack the rigor to give their claims validity and may reach undeserved conclusions leading to misunderstanding from a part of the public who want some validation for their own beliefs.

scottLobster 5y ago
I'd say the root is likely much simpler: Money Getting a degree, particularly a PhD to do research, is hideously expensive in the US and rarely pays well relative to the cost, even for STEM. Science in general is underfunded IMO, and from what I'm told competition for grants can be extreme. Society says they want the next Thomas Edison but they aren't willing to fund all the other failed light bulb designs to find him. In that environment being an amateur scientist makes the most sense if you can swing it. Do something more lucrative to ensure prosperity and, if you're really passionate about something scientific and can afford the necessary equipment yourself, do it at home and blog about it. Worth remembering that prior to modern funding mechanisms a lot (most?) of science was done by the independently wealthy gentry.
- caddemon 5y ago
  I agree competition for grants drives a lot of these problems, but getting a STEM PhD costs nothing at any remotely respectable institution. You will be spending 5+ years making less than you could, so you still may not come out ahead financially, but it's purely an opportunity cost not an actual cost. It's not uncommon either for people to bail with a free masters after 2 years. I like the idea of making money first and then pursuing research, but I think for certain fields the only way to do much of anything would be to latch on as a research volunteer to an existing lab. Because the cost to run any experiments is just way too high, particularly if you have no shared equipment to begin with. Alternatively, you could just start a PhD later in life. There are time limits on a bunch of the academic stages, but no clock really starts until after you've finished your PhD. I do think it would be a lot more comfortable to do a PhD once you've already financially established yourself, plus I think it produces a better culture when people aren't so attached to progressing up the academic ladder, like their life depends on it.
  - akiselev 5y ago
    I think you're underestimating opportunity cost and overestimating how much grant money is spent on actual science rather than overhead costs like the university's 25% cut, head count, administration, conferences, and so on. The actual numbers are staggering. When I dropped out and first moved to SV (pre facebook IPO), I lived with a Mozilla undergraduate intern who made twice what my mom made as a neuroscience postdoc with decades of experience. An engineer making mid to senior level FAANG money and investing savings in an index fund, probably makes $1 million to $2 million more over a decade. For someone who doesn't make it into a tenured position, the life time difference in earnings is depressing to think about. The barriers to entry are intimidating but not insurmountable - there are so many hidden idiosyncrasies and inefficiencies in academia that obfuscate the real cost and make it seem harder than it really is. Just look at the proliferation of hackerspaces with their capital equipment which, although not as expensive as some lab equipment, still runs in the tens of thousands per machine. It's just that we've been doing it this way for so long we can't imagine any other way.
    - 5y ago

treeman79 5y ago

A lot of “amateurs” have access to far more resources than professionals of generations past. Equipment, training, larger communities, sometimes even functional wealth. Let’s see what happens when we drop a car from a crane onto a trampoline. That’s a lot more equipment then dropping a feather and a cannon ball off a tower.