4 ms·

This is well understood, and conscientious professors drill these concepts into prospective students and lab members. Unfortunately there are many who aren't co

by xipho 5y ago

This is well understood, and conscientious professors drill these concepts into prospective students and lab members. Unfortunately there are many who aren't conscientious. I know bitter, would-be scientists ejected from the system, we need more money in Science (the NSF budget is so small relative to military expenditures the biggest tragedy I know). I know scientists who think that people are insane for doing anything that isn't what they are doing. We need more tenure. I love grant writing, but I'm in a privileged position (albeit not tenured). It's a wonderful chance to explore, formulate, and refine ideas as to what might be possible. The harder part is when you have a grant, double your work. But, again, the people you get to meet, places you get to go, and aha moments that come out of Science, the products of those grants, and your team's hard work- are unbeatable, and they are a truly memorable part of my life.

derbOac 5y ago
Speaking from experience, tenure isn't enough. The federal government needs to cutoff the indirect funds money siphon because the problems don't end with tenure. Doing so would be painful but would force universities to be real about their priorities. Increasing available funds without changing the system will just increase the scope of the pyramid scheme without changing anything. You have to do both.
- xipho 5y ago
  Largely agree, however I would rather have a pyramid scheme in science, than building guns. I.e. the argument "we can do better" isn't special to Science. Indirect funds are a big issue, but not without some use, the technical support at various levels is useful. The admin layers above that, not so much. This style of argument is commonly presented here. In discussion here very, very often, people point out "the system will be abused". Most of my friends in Science are content with where they are at. They work super hard, are super intelligent, are often making the best of smaller institutions, and they wouldn't think twice about scamming the system, abusing it, etc. Maybe the liberal mindset bias is in effect here, I'm absolutely certain there are those abusing the system. I feel like the opinions here, in HN, frequently depend so much on assuming that everyone is out to screw their neighbor, at the first chance they get. It's sad (and contrary to the guidelines at some level- assume the best, work from there).
  - derbOac 5y ago
    I guess I feel as if there shouldn't be a choice between having too many wars and a broken academic system? As the pandemic has shown, these issues can have real-life consequences as well. My experience is that experiences in science can vary tremendously depending on the institution, which in itself is part of the problem. Some institutions and fields are basically as you describe, and people are basically humble, hardworking, and make do sincerely and resourcefully. Many, many institutions, though, are dysfunctional and corrupt. Increasingly indirect funds are the primary goal in evaluating scientists and scientific contributions, period. I could tell many personal anecdotes about this, from my own experience as well as those of others (as tenured faculty), but it is not an exaggeration to say that the primary motive in many departments, at least in the biomedical sciences, is indirect funds from the federal government. This has been acknowledged as such in commentaries by formal heads of federal funding agencies. I can explain how this distorts many things, but I have seen these pyramid schemes persist even in the presence of these discussions, without any acknowledgement by programs or colleges. They simply do not care because to do so would cost them indirects. One thing that's upsetting to me is that the people who are well-situated of course are not harmed. They benefit, and are happy to continue with the status quo because they have thrived under it, and don't have to deal with the consequences in terms of misplaced shame, lost years and salaries, and lost opportunities. It also distorts scientific process, leading to endless discussions of p-values versus Bayesian CIs that don't matter because the problem is hype chasing and monetary incentives. The thing is, it's not even necessarily about the scientists, many of whom may be very well-meaning as you describe. It's at a higher level, in terms of program and hiring strategy, departmental organization, etc. The people doing well may not even be aware of the fact that for every group of theirs that is doing well, getting along, etc. there are many times more people who weren't allowed in the group, who got in with a bad crowd, who were manipulated or taken advantage of, or so forth. I often get this sense that the counterarguments go something like this: "well, science is still making a lot of progress" and "good people are getting along fine" which has this Machiavellian flavor to it. The question isn't whether or not progress is being made, it's how much better could things be if they were different? I'm also not saying funding shouldn't be increased, I'm just saying that there have to be serious structural changes to go along with it as well, otherwise we're going to end up with the same problems at a bigger scale.
lumost 5y ago
On the other side, it's possible that we have too many people expecting careers in science. If you look at top-tier work from the 1700s-1950s it's remarkable how productive and impactful the same set of scientists were. Each scientist would produce a few grad student successors over their entire career - and were presumably deeply invested in their success because of this. Since the 1950s US institutions have been producing many more grad students than there could ever possibly be positions for. This simply increases the competition and favors anti-competitive approaches to science (block alternative theories funding, buddy up with a few others to control what papers get accepted to conferences etc. )
- petermcneeley 5y ago
  I mean the whole world worked that way back then. Kings trained kings and cobblers trained cobblers. In fact there were many father-son scientists duos. The issue is that there really is less and less work on the bottom (farming etc). There is actually less work in even blue collar due to how things are made (thrown out). So where do people work? Why wouldnt 2022 have like a population of 60% scientists? Would you rather them fill bullshit jobs?
  - lumost 5y ago
    I'm not sure the characterization of science not being full of bullshit jobs is accurate. Many of these jobs are studying fields that finished decades ago, training scientists who will never work in the field, writing endless tiny grant proposals, and trying to publish enough not to get buried. I think we need a more stable funding model for science that doesn't incentivize gaming the system. I'd love it if 60% of the population had stable employement as scientists while robots did everything else for us, but spending 100x on our current science infrastructure would probably mean less output unless we allow greater independence and stability.
    - petermcneeley 5y ago
      "I think we need a more stable funding model for science that doesn't incentivize gaming the system." I think there is a scarcity issue here and if that scarcity issue was resolved you would see a blooming of scientific discoveries/applications. As for the fields finishing decades ago. Yes some of them have become quite well defined (Physics) but there still is plenty of room for applied science and engineering in these areas.

by xipho 5y ago

derbOac 5y ago

Speaking from experience, tenure isn't enough. The federal government needs to cutoff the indirect funds money siphon because the problems don't end with tenure. Doing so would be painful but would force universities to be real about their priorities. Increasing available funds without changing the system will just increase the scope of the pyramid scheme without changing anything. You have to do both.

xipho 5y ago
Largely agree, however I would rather have a pyramid scheme in science, than building guns. I.e. the argument "we can do better" isn't special to Science. Indirect funds are a big issue, but not without some use, the technical support at various levels is useful. The admin layers above that, not so much. This style of argument is commonly presented here. In discussion here very, very often, people point out "the system will be abused". Most of my friends in Science are content with where they are at. They work super hard, are super intelligent, are often making the best of smaller institutions, and they wouldn't think twice about scamming the system, abusing it, etc. Maybe the liberal mindset bias is in effect here, I'm absolutely certain there are those abusing the system. I feel like the opinions here, in HN, frequently depend so much on assuming that everyone is out to screw their neighbor, at the first chance they get. It's sad (and contrary to the guidelines at some level- assume the best, work from there).
- derbOac 5y ago
  I guess I feel as if there shouldn't be a choice between having too many wars and a broken academic system? As the pandemic has shown, these issues can have real-life consequences as well. My experience is that experiences in science can vary tremendously depending on the institution, which in itself is part of the problem. Some institutions and fields are basically as you describe, and people are basically humble, hardworking, and make do sincerely and resourcefully. Many, many institutions, though, are dysfunctional and corrupt. Increasingly indirect funds are the primary goal in evaluating scientists and scientific contributions, period. I could tell many personal anecdotes about this, from my own experience as well as those of others (as tenured faculty), but it is not an exaggeration to say that the primary motive in many departments, at least in the biomedical sciences, is indirect funds from the federal government. This has been acknowledged as such in commentaries by formal heads of federal funding agencies. I can explain how this distorts many things, but I have seen these pyramid schemes persist even in the presence of these discussions, without any acknowledgement by programs or colleges. They simply do not care because to do so would cost them indirects. One thing that's upsetting to me is that the people who are well-situated of course are not harmed. They benefit, and are happy to continue with the status quo because they have thrived under it, and don't have to deal with the consequences in terms of misplaced shame, lost years and salaries, and lost opportunities. It also distorts scientific process, leading to endless discussions of p-values versus Bayesian CIs that don't matter because the problem is hype chasing and monetary incentives. The thing is, it's not even necessarily about the scientists, many of whom may be very well-meaning as you describe. It's at a higher level, in terms of program and hiring strategy, departmental organization, etc. The people doing well may not even be aware of the fact that for every group of theirs that is doing well, getting along, etc. there are many times more people who weren't allowed in the group, who got in with a bad crowd, who were manipulated or taken advantage of, or so forth. I often get this sense that the counterarguments go something like this: "well, science is still making a lot of progress" and "good people are getting along fine" which has this Machiavellian flavor to it. The question isn't whether or not progress is being made, it's how much better could things be if they were different? I'm also not saying funding shouldn't be increased, I'm just saying that there have to be serious structural changes to go along with it as well, otherwise we're going to end up with the same problems at a bigger scale.

lumost 5y ago

On the other side, it's possible that we have too many people expecting careers in science. If you look at top-tier work from the 1700s-1950s it's remarkable how productive and impactful the same set of scientists were. Each scientist would produce a few grad student successors over their entire career - and were presumably deeply invested in their success because of this. Since the 1950s US institutions have been producing many more grad students than there could ever possibly be positions for. This simply increases the competition and favors anti-competitive approaches to science (block alternative theories funding, buddy up with a few others to control what papers get accepted to conferences etc. )

petermcneeley 5y ago
I mean the whole world worked that way back then. Kings trained kings and cobblers trained cobblers. In fact there were many father-son scientists duos. The issue is that there really is less and less work on the bottom (farming etc). There is actually less work in even blue collar due to how things are made (thrown out). So where do people work? Why wouldnt 2022 have like a population of 60% scientists? Would you rather them fill bullshit jobs?
- lumost 5y ago
  I'm not sure the characterization of science not being full of bullshit jobs is accurate. Many of these jobs are studying fields that finished decades ago, training scientists who will never work in the field, writing endless tiny grant proposals, and trying to publish enough not to get buried. I think we need a more stable funding model for science that doesn't incentivize gaming the system. I'd love it if 60% of the population had stable employement as scientists while robots did everything else for us, but spending 100x on our current science infrastructure would probably mean less output unless we allow greater independence and stability.
  - petermcneeley 5y ago
    "I think we need a more stable funding model for science that doesn't incentivize gaming the system." I think there is a scarcity issue here and if that scarcity issue was resolved you would see a blooming of scientific discoveries/applications. As for the fields finishing decades ago. Yes some of them have become quite well defined (Physics) but there still is plenty of room for applied science and engineering in these areas.