3 ms·

This is extremely physics-centered. 2021 is an especially poor year to complain about our society producing enough elites to expand our understanding of the phy

by runako 5y ago

This is extremely physics-centered. 2021 is an especially poor year to complain about our society producing enough elites to expand our understanding of the physical world, given that this year billions of people are currently being inoculated against a novel disease by vaccines built on a novel platform in record time. And when new therapeutic vectors are becoming readily available for the same disease, also in record time. I'm not a physicist or biologist, but from my perspective, the advancements in biotech in the areas of vaccines, cancer therapeutics, and other areas are at least worthy of mention here. Rapid cures for pandemics are likely to do more to help expand basic science research -- by exciting the populace -- than more precise measurements of the charge of basic particles. And this week is an especially poor choice to publish a rant like this given the news that a company just got sizable funding to scale fusion reactors to commercial scale. Physics triumphs; physicists lament? Perhaps we have the frontierspeople we need, and because they don't look like the frontier in the history books, the author simply doesn't recognize this?

derbOac 5y ago
But that vaccine? Partially developed by one woman who was treated like dirt by U Penn because she insisted on pursuing mRNA vaccines, solely because she wasn't bringing in enough federal grant money. Demoted. Supported by another faculty member to do it. U Penn now likes to try to take credit for it even though this research was done despite them, not because of it. This woman leaves university academics to pursue research through the private sector. She's doing fine, thank you, won a big award etc. But to me it's a perfect example, in that this vaccine you're mentioning, that saved the world in a literal sense, occurred despite the academic structure. That academic structure tried to stomp her out, expunge her from the department. I think it's totally appropriate, in this kind of climate, to point all this out. Are there advances? Sure, but it's more in the sense that the initial world conflicts of the early twentieth century slowly evolved in the midst of trench warfare in which humans were treated like fodder for the machine. I have a problem with the linked article only in that it's grossly misleading: the author seems to disagree with the elite overproduction thesis, but then essentially goes on to argue that there's an overproduction of elites, at least insofar as there's no resources to support them. But every one of those people who exits academics because they aren't given the opportunities, or are psychologically abused, or who don't have the right connections, or whatever, are another opportunity lost. So I agree with it in its substance. Academics is currently grossly dysfunctional. The fact that progress occurs at all is a strawman -- it's not about progress per se, it's about opportunity costs and lost life in time and suffering.
- runako 5y ago
  Sure, we're not optimizing. But my point still stands that yes, we are making progress, and yes science is delivering in places where it counts right now. The pessimism is unwarranted. What would be more interesting to me is some critical analysis of why the American sciences in particular are structured to exclude most of the minds on the planet. What are we losing, for instance, by the fact that our institutions are not able to attract and retain women and other historically underestimated groups? What are we losing by making our immigration regime more repellent to scientific talent, such that more people stay in places where they are not able to maximize their gifts? Especially in the context of the difficulties encountered by the researcher you cited, it seems obvious that an examination of these historic biases is warranted, although it would be more unpleasant & politically charged than railing against capital structures etc.
  - RNCTX 5y ago
    It sounds like you mean to say "I would like my preconceived notions justified." The pessimism is not unwarranted. The ends don't justify the means. Or if you want to argue that they do, then you don't get to keep the diversity games, because they're the opposite of that sentiment. Unless of course you're looking to admit that diversity games are just another means of wealth accumulation and labor suppression, in which case, go ahead and connect all the dots that you like.
    - runako 5y ago
      What argument are you making? Would be happy to engage if you care to revise your post so that it is coherent.

by runako 5y ago

derbOac 5y ago

But that vaccine? Partially developed by one woman who was treated like dirt by U Penn because she insisted on pursuing mRNA vaccines, solely because she wasn't bringing in enough federal grant money. Demoted. Supported by another faculty member to do it. U Penn now likes to try to take credit for it even though this research was done despite them, not because of it. This woman leaves university academics to pursue research through the private sector. She's doing fine, thank you, won a big award etc. But to me it's a perfect example, in that this vaccine you're mentioning, that saved the world in a literal sense, occurred despite the academic structure. That academic structure tried to stomp her out, expunge her from the department. I think it's totally appropriate, in this kind of climate, to point all this out. Are there advances? Sure, but it's more in the sense that the initial world conflicts of the early twentieth century slowly evolved in the midst of trench warfare in which humans were treated like fodder for the machine. I have a problem with the linked article only in that it's grossly misleading: the author seems to disagree with the elite overproduction thesis, but then essentially goes on to argue that there's an overproduction of elites, at least insofar as there's no resources to support them. But every one of those people who exits academics because they aren't given the opportunities, or are psychologically abused, or who don't have the right connections, or whatever, are another opportunity lost. So I agree with it in its substance. Academics is currently grossly dysfunctional. The fact that progress occurs at all is a strawman -- it's not about progress per se, it's about opportunity costs and lost life in time and suffering.

runako 5y ago
Sure, we're not optimizing. But my point still stands that yes, we are making progress, and yes science is delivering in places where it counts right now. The pessimism is unwarranted. What would be more interesting to me is some critical analysis of why the American sciences in particular are structured to exclude most of the minds on the planet. What are we losing, for instance, by the fact that our institutions are not able to attract and retain women and other historically underestimated groups? What are we losing by making our immigration regime more repellent to scientific talent, such that more people stay in places where they are not able to maximize their gifts? Especially in the context of the difficulties encountered by the researcher you cited, it seems obvious that an examination of these historic biases is warranted, although it would be more unpleasant & politically charged than railing against capital structures etc.
- RNCTX 5y ago
  It sounds like you mean to say "I would like my preconceived notions justified." The pessimism is not unwarranted. The ends don't justify the means. Or if you want to argue that they do, then you don't get to keep the diversity games, because they're the opposite of that sentiment. Unless of course you're looking to admit that diversity games are just another means of wealth accumulation and labor suppression, in which case, go ahead and connect all the dots that you like.
  - runako 5y ago
    What argument are you making? Would be happy to engage if you care to revise your post so that it is coherent.