4 ms·

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. Ind

by 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.
- xipho 5y ago
  Nicely said. The "how much better could it be" argument frustrates me at some levels, particularly in those areas where fundamentally solid science is going on. There is seemingly a constant push to evolve things that "aren't done" (if they were then perhaps they would have evolved themselves to some other area/field). "Making it better" is a worthy goal, but I've seen, as you've precisely pointed out, that turn into academic discussions (and funding) completely out of touch with the foundation of what they were trying to "make better". For example there is a dedicate forum in an upcoming conference on NFTs and their role in funding the science I work on. In my nightmares I can imagine being asked to setup the infrastructure to support them. This is lunacy, clearly if those good folk are desperate enough to consider this, they are not getting enough $ (they aren't). Science needs time, a lot of it, scientists need the freedom to sit and think, and think, and years later think some more. I would argue that the absence of that type of framework is the root cause of what you point out- chasing the hype train, get on, get off, shallow, superficial ideas, with no reference to the past, well meaning perhaps, but ultimately not strengthening a foundation. A tricky topic indeed.

by xipho 5y ago

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.

xipho 5y ago
Nicely said. The "how much better could it be" argument frustrates me at some levels, particularly in those areas where fundamentally solid science is going on. There is seemingly a constant push to evolve things that "aren't done" (if they were then perhaps they would have evolved themselves to some other area/field). "Making it better" is a worthy goal, but I've seen, as you've precisely pointed out, that turn into academic discussions (and funding) completely out of touch with the foundation of what they were trying to "make better". For example there is a dedicate forum in an upcoming conference on NFTs and their role in funding the science I work on. In my nightmares I can imagine being asked to setup the infrastructure to support them. This is lunacy, clearly if those good folk are desperate enough to consider this, they are not getting enough $ (they aren't). Science needs time, a lot of it, scientists need the freedom to sit and think, and think, and years later think some more. I would argue that the absence of that type of framework is the root cause of what you point out- chasing the hype train, get on, get off, shallow, superficial ideas, with no reference to the past, well meaning perhaps, but ultimately not strengthening a foundation. A tricky topic indeed.