17 ms·

Having been long in academia, what has increased is commercialization of all kinds of science, number of science managers (like modern day billionaires, taking

by aborsy 4y ago

Having been long in academia, what has increased is commercialization of all kinds of science, number of science managers (like modern day billionaires, taking credit for the work actually done by the graduate students and postdocs, growing to be huge), number of politicians putting their names in various papers (I see managers co-authoring on average a paper per week), brutal competition for status and citations, excellent writing and formalism with little or no substance, rise of administrators with large incomes, gangs and tribes accepting each other grants and papers, intensified politics on awards/recognitions/invited talks and control of main publications, people constantly chasing the same topical subjects for grants and industry relevance, and similar activities. The science component has actually decreased in my view. The system and practices sometimes remind me of the Wall Street, with the currency being fame. I don’t think this system will last for too long. The environment is increasingly filled with status hungry people. Balaji has a good prediction on that.

ren_engineer 4y ago
I agree, modern academia seems to be more about meta-skills of gaming the system and playing politics rather than who is the best at actual research. Probably why so many potential academics just go into private industry >I don’t think this system will last for too long. Balaji has a good prediction on that. link?
- ralphmelish 4y ago
  I believe he is talking about this thread: https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1450324226129338369?lang=en-GB https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1450324226129338369?lang=...
- aborsy 4y ago
  He addressed this topic in a podcast around two years ago (he has too many podcasts to find it). He was asked about his views on academia vs industry, having been in both himself. He said capable people in academia will gradually realize that it’s better to start companies or do the same work in industry, rather than writing these grants.
foobarbecue 4y ago
I'm a scientist at heart, and my PhD is science, but this is a very good description of why I decided to work as an engineer instead.
- spicymaki 4y ago
  I worked for a midsize company that required the CEO be named on all patent applications. I am not sure engineering is exempt.
  - anamax 4y ago
    > I worked for a midsize company that required the CEO be named on all patent applications. Unless the CEO actually was one of the inventors, that is grounds to invalidate the patents and there may be other consequences.
  - hatmatrix 4y ago
    I believe this happened at Theranos as well.
cycomanic 4y ago
I think we underestimate the amount of politics that was going on in science previously. Really compared to the shenanigans with Newton, Leibnitz or Hooke and Newton, much of what we see today is quite harmless. Or take for a more recent example Teller and Oppenheimer. I think in science (but not only in science) we tend to idealise the old days and scientists, because we remember the discoveries not the politics and their personal flaws. I would even argue that this greatly demonstrates the success of the scientific process. In the end the best science won, despite all the political infighting.
- derbOac 4y ago
  I often wonder about this, and have talked about this all with older colleagues. My sense is some things were the same, but others were really different. Even looking at the peer review process: it was much more informal in the distant past, and maybe more akin to what happens today with invited papers in my experience, or with small open source software projects. There were certaintly very petty but intense personal squabbles in the past but that's a bit different from the pervasive structural issues in science today. At some level too, I don't care what it was like 100 years ago. I can still see the problems today.
  - semi-extrinsic 4y ago
    Peer review really was different in the past. Hell, Nature even used to occasionally accept papers without any review at all until the mid-1970s, if the editor thought they would provoke good discussions. Watson and Crick's famous 1953 paper where they presented the double helix of DNA is one such example.
  - cycomanic 4y ago
    Yes I didn't mean to say that there are no issues in science. I disagree that politics and personalities are a big part though. I think we have huge structural issues, requirements and pressures are increasing constantly, the way into science takes much longer and much talent is burnt out in the process, current funding favors short term "low risk" research and disincentives trying out new things or changing direction/field...
whatever1 4y ago
But then Balaji also predicts that crypto is viable. So I would take his opinion with a pint of salt.
gtsnexp 4y ago
interesting thoughts, would you mind sharing the reference from Balaji? I'd like to hear his point.

by aborsy 4y ago

ren_engineer 4y ago

I agree, modern academia seems to be more about meta-skills of gaming the system and playing politics rather than who is the best at actual research. Probably why so many potential academics just go into private industry >I don’t think this system will last for too long. Balaji has a good prediction on that. link?

ralphmelish 4y ago
I believe he is talking about this thread: https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1450324226129338369?lang=en-GB https://twitter.com/balajis/status/1450324226129338369?lang=...
aborsy 4y ago
He addressed this topic in a podcast around two years ago (he has too many podcasts to find it). He was asked about his views on academia vs industry, having been in both himself. He said capable people in academia will gradually realize that it’s better to start companies or do the same work in industry, rather than writing these grants.

foobarbecue 4y ago

I'm a scientist at heart, and my PhD is science, but this is a very good description of why I decided to work as an engineer instead.

spicymaki 4y ago
I worked for a midsize company that required the CEO be named on all patent applications. I am not sure engineering is exempt.
- anamax 4y ago
  > I worked for a midsize company that required the CEO be named on all patent applications. Unless the CEO actually was one of the inventors, that is grounds to invalidate the patents and there may be other consequences.
- hatmatrix 4y ago
  I believe this happened at Theranos as well.

cycomanic 4y ago

I think we underestimate the amount of politics that was going on in science previously. Really compared to the shenanigans with Newton, Leibnitz or Hooke and Newton, much of what we see today is quite harmless. Or take for a more recent example Teller and Oppenheimer. I think in science (but not only in science) we tend to idealise the old days and scientists, because we remember the discoveries not the politics and their personal flaws. I would even argue that this greatly demonstrates the success of the scientific process. In the end the best science won, despite all the political infighting.

derbOac 4y ago
I often wonder about this, and have talked about this all with older colleagues. My sense is some things were the same, but others were really different. Even looking at the peer review process: it was much more informal in the distant past, and maybe more akin to what happens today with invited papers in my experience, or with small open source software projects. There were certaintly very petty but intense personal squabbles in the past but that's a bit different from the pervasive structural issues in science today. At some level too, I don't care what it was like 100 years ago. I can still see the problems today.
- semi-extrinsic 4y ago
  Peer review really was different in the past. Hell, Nature even used to occasionally accept papers without any review at all until the mid-1970s, if the editor thought they would provoke good discussions. Watson and Crick's famous 1953 paper where they presented the double helix of DNA is one such example.
- cycomanic 4y ago
  Yes I didn't mean to say that there are no issues in science. I disagree that politics and personalities are a big part though. I think we have huge structural issues, requirements and pressures are increasing constantly, the way into science takes much longer and much talent is burnt out in the process, current funding favors short term "low risk" research and disincentives trying out new things or changing direction/field...

whatever1 4y ago

But then Balaji also predicts that crypto is viable. So I would take his opinion with a pint of salt.

gtsnexp 4y ago

interesting thoughts, would you mind sharing the reference from Balaji? I'd like to hear his point.