4 ms·
We're also in an era where groundbreaking research is seldom done by lone unicorn researchers expanding on a stroke of genius. The Nobel Prizes are still awar
by DoughnutHole 5y ago
We're also in an era where groundbreaking research is seldom done by lone unicorn researchers expanding on a stroke of genius.
The Nobel Prizes are still awarded to individuals but often only because that's how Nobel decided the prize had to work over a century ago. Prizes are most of the time awarded to the heads of research groups who's discoveries are made of the backs of dozens of researchers and graduates often working 80 hour weeks, and in some cases hundreds or thousands of technicians.
The only prize that regularly meets the lone genius researcher trope is when the physics prize is awarded to a theorist (partially since it can't go to the hundreds of physicists responsible for verifying the theory).
Newton could see so far from standing on the shoulders of giants, the modern researcher can see so far from standing on the pyramid of overworked untenured researchers.
- lumost 5y ago> Newton could see so far from standing on the shoulders of giants, the modern researcher can see so far from standing on the pyramid of overworked untenured researchers. On the flip side, is this partially responsible for the declining productivity of science? We're effectively tying brilliant new talent to the whims of elders. ultimately as anyone who runs a large organization will tell you - you aren't going to get ground breaking work from a large org. Do we need more diffuse science?
- DoughnutHole 5y agoI don't really know if there's a way it could diffused - the reality on the ground is that cutting edge science requires cutting edge resources, and since advances are made on the margins major breakthroughs require knowledge across so many areas that one person can't possible be a specialist in everything involved. Both of those aspects mean most major research requires a significant concentration of resources to even be feasible.