7 ms·

Do scientists really need a PhD?

52 points by mbrubeck 15y ago

urbanjunkie 15y ago
You don't need a PhD to be a scientist, but you almost certainly need a PhD to be funded to do science. (there are of course exceptions, but this is very much the general rule)
- ams6110 15y ago
  As well you need one to be accepted as a legitimate peer in science communities where everyone else has one.
nn2 15y ago
I doubt the scientists need PhDs, but a lot of research groups need cheap sla^wgrade students and the PhD process provides that. Now if more of the research funding actually was used for paying scientists that system wouldn't be needed, but it is how it is.
oldstrangers 15y ago
Does Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg or Jack Dorsey need a BS in Computer Science? No, apparently not. The purpose of science related PhDs has always seemed to be a means to an end that wasn't financially available anywhere else. Academically, there are a lot of pursuits that you simply can not pursue outside of that setting. The science PhD is ultimately the direction you want your career to take, but you know it can't realistically take that path without some luck. And of course, the safety of academia is intoxicating on all levels. Why dive head first into research that requires funding and years of preparation when you can basically do the same thing at school without any repercussions? The PhD is a safety net for abstract thought that has little to do with the real world. It may seem like a crazy comparison, but the sort of struggles scientists go through with their research is not entirely unlike what an artists goes through. No one really wants to acknowledge your absurd existence, and there's not really anyone to talk to when you do get on the outside. So no, success, be it financially or scientifically does not require higher education. But socially and emotionally, you can't underestimate the importance of things like a PhD.
- zerostar07 15y ago
  Are they scientists? No.
  - oldstrangers 15y ago
    Is computer science not a science? Someone should alert all the major colleges of your discovery.
    - p4bl0 15y ago
      Computer science is a science. Engineering and programming are not. This is not at all a value judgement, just a fact. Studying/creating/improving logic and type systems is doing science, creating Facebook is not. The wording "computer science" is too much overloaded. In French we have even less luck with the word "informatique": everything from studying category theory to using Microsoft Word is called doing "informatique"… :-/
      - oldstrangers 15y ago
        So, building a bridge does not require science. And building the algorithms for google also does not require science. Its as though we need a new word for these non-science related sciences. EDIT: I thought of it! Vanity Science.
        urbanjunkie 15y ago
        Bridge building is accepted as engineering. Engineering is not science. Brunel could probably not have formulated the Theory of Relativity. Einstein could probably not have "built" the Great Western Railway. The application of science is not science.
        oldstrangers 15y ago
        So scientists create science, but non-scientists apply science? If a scientist were to ever apply science, perhaps like those working at CERN, they would ultimately become non-scientists? Wait, engineers _built_ CERN applying science, but scientists _use_ CERN ... using science. I think the only difference is that some scientists test science, and some scientists apply science. Is a doctor a scientist or an engineer? He's both testing and applying. Semantics are sometimes pretty stupid (or usually always), and honestly that's the only reason I'm pursuing this silly argument.
kevinalexbrown 15y ago
I'm planning to get a PhD in a science, so this is a question I've asked myself a lot. From a theoretical standpoint, a PhD is obviously not a magical "get good at science" button: there are plenty of other ways to gain competence. An example is Rick Stevens at Argonne National Labs, [1], who I'm pretty sure doesn't have a PhD (my friend worked for him once, and his bio doesn't mention it, but I don't know him personally). People like that show that a PhD is obviously not necessary to do first-class work. On the other hand, if you want to be a principal investigator on a grant of any decent size, almost no one will believe you have that competence without a PhD. Part of this is the ridiculously rigid US scientific job market: all the arbitrary structure of a resume, even less of the rationale. You can't get a postdoc, almost trivially, without a doctorate. Even if someone wanted to give you a job as a postdoc, the university wouldn't like it, and why choose the guy without the PhD when you have other talented people who also have those three letters? And it's really hard to get a faculty position without a postdoc, so there you go. So if I could go about becoming a principal investigator or having a nice faculty position without getting a PhD, I'd seriously consider it. But practically speaking, that's not a real possibility yet. Hopefully someday it will be. [1] http://www.anl.gov/Administration/Bios/stevens.html http://www.anl.gov/Administration/Bios/stevens.html
- p4bl0 15y ago
  I'm also planning to get a PhD in CS starting next year. But I think this question is irrelevant, in the sense that it is not the right one. Because of course the answer is formally "no", one can be a very good scientists without having a PhD. But do society needs people getting PhDs and people training them and the whole university system. Yes, definitely yes. And a PhD, even if not formally needed to be a good scientists, is an effective way to become a scientists since it's basically learning to be one with others who already are.
- aroberge 15y ago
  Sorry for stating the obvious but, Postdoc == Post-doctoral (fellowship). So, of course you can't get one without having doctoral degree. However, it is sometimes possible to work as a research assistant and end up doing very similar work, without requiring a Ph.D.
raphman 15y ago
One thing to note: There are a lot of differences between PhDs in different fields of research. Especially in biomed research, PhD students often seem to do extremely specialized research. Therefore, what they learn during their PhD may be much less generalizable than e.g. what CS PhD students learn. I guess it depends on the definition of a PhD whether it is necessary for a certain job or not. Interesting comments here: http://scientopia.org/blogs/science-professor/2011/03/22/rat-race/ http://scientopia.org/blogs/science-professor/2011/03/22/rat...
- mvzink 15y ago
  I'm still an undergrad and therefore naïve, but I had always thought PhDs were much more about proving they can perform research than "what they learn"
  - Radim 15y ago
    You are correct; PhD is a degree where you are expected to demonstrate original research. See http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/ http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/ for a visual guide to academic degrees :)
  - raphman 15y ago
    Maybe we should distinguish between the doctorate you get awarded for you PhD thesis (the proof that you can perform research) and the stuff you do during your PhD studies (what you learn). Depending on you advisor(s), your topic, your own knowledge and motivation, and many other factors, you may be able to conduct great research or mediocre research. Depending on how narrowly you focus, you may acquire more focused knowledge or more broad knowledge during your research. In fields like biomed research, you work on a very confined topic within a large team. You may only need to care about your specific experiment. Everything else is nothing you should (or need to) care about. Compare this to a typical CS PhD student at a German university (e.g. me). You more or less define the topic you want to work on by yourself, are required to teach courses, supervise students, occasionally work on a commercial project, and have to learn all that stuff which is necessary for your research, e.g. user studies, statistics, machine learning, electronics, etc. Having a PhD does not necessarily mean that you know how to perform proper research. I know of a good number of PhDs that have little knowledge of core scientific principles like correct attribution. In my opinion, what you learn on your journey to a PhD is much more important (in most cases) than the topic of your PhD thesis.
FaceKicker 15y ago
Disclosure: first-year CS Ph.D. student. I would say, no, a scientist doesn't really need a "Ph.D.", but does need the training that a Ph.D. involves. To me, this question is very different from the question of whether someone who wants to be an industry software engineer needs a bachelor's degree (a popular HN topic). The difference is that in a science Ph.D. program, you are doing science the entire time you are there. Sure, you take a few classes as well, but these are only to reinforce concepts you'll need in your research; the entire reason you're there is to learn to do scientific research by actually doing scientific research. You are doing at school what you'll be doing in your career; you're just getting paid less for it because you're "in training". I don't see any reason why one couldn't get a similar education by doing scientific research in an industry which does not result in a formal "Ph.D." degree, rather than an academic setting that does result in a Ph.D., it just doesn't seem like it's been tried up until (apparently) now. Personally (all other things being equal) I'd rather do a Ph.D. program in an academic setting because an industry setting would likely be constrained to research areas that are beneficial to the company.
tincholio 15y ago
No, but it helps. There are some very bright researchers who don't have one (Simon Peyton-Jones being one, for example), but they do help in forming people as scientists. Of course, working after getting your BSc. as a researcher on a specific area for many years is, in most aspects the same as doing a doctorate, so except for the lack of diploma, there probably shouldn't be a big difference.
timpeterson 15y ago
phd is dumb but skeptical china will be informative as a proving ground for this idea, do people think # of chinese nobel prize winners will increase in years to come? realize nobel prize is a western world creation but this makes like seem no...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_coun...
ThomPete 15y ago
I guess the question is. Do you need a PhD to create scientific break-troughs or practice science. Cause that seems to be the only metrics worth considering when answering that question. I would guess the answer is no.
- Radim 15y ago
  No need to guess -- the answer to that question is "no". Universities started awarding PhD degrees at the (end of) the 19th century. If PhDs were a necessity for scientific breakthroughs, then there couldn't have been any scientific breakthroughs before the 19th century, a contradiction. QED. edit: but I got myself one just in case, anyway :)
WhatsHisName 15y ago
It's been my experience that most of these Chinese biotech companies are factories. One guy makes all the money and the rest do all the work. This is not at all like the computer technology model in the US.
- hessenwolf 15y ago
  Bioinformatics, and chemistry/material science areas seem to me to require way more semi-skilled labour in general than computer technology (even though I could still really do with a basic DBA or two and a low-level html-cranker).
Irishsteve 15y ago
From what I gather, the point of a phd is to train researchers so they can become independent researchers i.e set their own 'big question' and understand methodologies to solve it. This article states that the research direction in China is coming from external parties (I suppose commercial interests). So all thats happening really is that companies are finding ever cheaper sources of skilled labour to solve their current problems. Academic researcher ideally shouldn't be linked to a companies motivations... or at least not all of it.
- hessenwolf 15y ago
  Yes - any large research project like the one described needs hordes of gobots to do the labour and testing. This is not the same as having hordes of people who identify both important hypotheses, and the means by which they will be tested.
baddspellar 15y ago
A PhD is a credential, as is a BS, an MS, or a CCIE. As long as employers demand a credential for hiring, that credential will be necessary. In the US, few companies are willing to take on the burden of training scientific researchers. Further, much of the pure research in this country is done at Universities, and virtually all US universities require a PhD for tenure track faculty. So a PhD is a necessary credential to do scientific research in the US. The linked article states that Asian companies are willing to invest in training smart university graduates to do research. That means the PhD credential is not required. The required credential is instead a "University Degree". Now, if the question is whether the PhD system is the best way to create scientists, that's entirely different. There's no reason to believe the University PhD system necessarily produces better scientists than a corporate lab would. University professors are not necessarily good teachers, and University labs are not necessarily well equipped. It's very similar to the "BS or higher in Computer Science or Engineering" credential on help wanted ads in the US. Does that BS or higher really make you a better programmer than someone who learned on his/her own? Of course not. But it's a credential, so you get it. Disclaimer: I do have a PhD
PaulHoule 15y ago
Frankly, the PhD is not a path to a permanent job as a scientist unless your parents were scientists. What it is is a program to get cheap labor that has the energy and low health insurance costs of youth. At some point you get thrown away and they get somebody new. The reason why P.I.'s are aging is that there are very few permanent jobs for scientists. Perhaps these people in China are a bit more honest than the rest of us.
andrewl 15y ago
Yes and no. Yes if you're talking about having a chance of working in the US at the level lots of PhDs do (faculty at a university, principal investigator of a grant-funded project, etc.). No if you're just asking if you need a PhD to think and work independently at the level of a PhD in a given field. It's my understanding that Freeman Dyson does not have a PhD, for example. He's also a bad example, because he's Freeman Dyson, and most people are not. Outliers are often bad examples. I think it's still a good idea to go to finish college, although dropping out worked for Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.
larsberg 15y ago
All scientists start out without a PhD. Then, they do some research. At some point, they either have published enough novel papers or have done a single piece of novel work that advances the art and warrants granting of a PhD. If these students truly are primary authors on major papers in serious peer-reviewed journals, I predict that this lab will end up with some sort of joint academic agreement with a local university so that the ceremonial stapling of bio papers and minting of PhDs can be done. The rest of graduate school (classes, a master's thesis, etc.) is just scaffolding to acclimate you to doing research. If you can skip all of that and jump right in, nicely done! But, of those 500 kids mentioned in the Nature article, I predict many do not do top-quality published research. I would even bet their success rate (measured as "people who graduate from just running experiments other people designed") will be lower than that of a traditional PhD-granting institution, were I a betting man. The scaffolding is expensive, but is there for a reason beyond just tradition.
spodek 15y ago
I have a PhD in physics though I became an entrepreneur. My loose definition of science is that you observe, predict, experiment, and honestly report your results. Five-year-olds can do that. I have found exploring and studying nature one of the more rewarding and pleasurable parts of my life. I've done it as a member of academic institutions, but I also do it just walking in the park. Three things I wouldn't confuse: a) membership or funding in an academic institution b) recognition from peers c) practicing science I consider them orthogonal. I consider a) a job, b) a nice perk, and c) an enjoyable pasttime or hobby. Great when they overlap but unnecessary.
- SilasX 15y ago
  >My loose definition of science is that you observe, predict, experiment, and honestly report your results. I would add one more thing: you become aware of others' efforts to do the same and build off of their work rather than "re-invent the wheel". (That doesn't mean you take it uncritically, just that you know what has been tried.) That part is, AFAICT, what PhD programs most intensely focus on, i.e., make sure you understand the existing work well enough that you can build on it rather than just independently re-discover results in the field. That part is also (usually) beyond the reach of five-year-olds. Note: you can certainly still meet this requirement without an official PhD program, of course.
tokenadult 15y ago
Previous discussion 662 days ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1183828 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1183828

52 points by mbrubeck 15y ago

You don't need a PhD to be a scientist, but you almost certainly need a PhD to be funded to do science. (there are of course exceptions, but this is very much the general rule)

ams6110 15y ago
As well you need one to be accepted as a legitimate peer in science communities where everyone else has one.

nn2 15y ago

I doubt the scientists need PhDs, but a lot of research groups need cheap sla^wgrade students and the PhD process provides that. Now if more of the research funding actually was used for paying scientists that system wouldn't be needed, but it is how it is.

oldstrangers 15y ago

Does Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg or Jack Dorsey need a BS in Computer Science? No, apparently not. The purpose of science related PhDs has always seemed to be a means to an end that wasn't financially available anywhere else. Academically, there are a lot of pursuits that you simply can not pursue outside of that setting. The science PhD is ultimately the direction you want your career to take, but you know it can't realistically take that path without some luck. And of course, the safety of academia is intoxicating on all levels. Why dive head first into research that requires funding and years of preparation when you can basically do the same thing at school without any repercussions? The PhD is a safety net for abstract thought that has little to do with the real world. It may seem like a crazy comparison, but the sort of struggles scientists go through with their research is not entirely unlike what an artists goes through. No one really wants to acknowledge your absurd existence, and there's not really anyone to talk to when you do get on the outside. So no, success, be it financially or scientifically does not require higher education. But socially and emotionally, you can't underestimate the importance of things like a PhD.

zerostar07 15y ago
Are they scientists? No.
- oldstrangers 15y ago
  Is computer science not a science? Someone should alert all the major colleges of your discovery.
  - p4bl0 15y ago
    Computer science is a science. Engineering and programming are not. This is not at all a value judgement, just a fact. Studying/creating/improving logic and type systems is doing science, creating Facebook is not. The wording "computer science" is too much overloaded. In French we have even less luck with the word "informatique": everything from studying category theory to using Microsoft Word is called doing "informatique"… :-/
    - oldstrangers 15y ago
      So, building a bridge does not require science. And building the algorithms for google also does not require science. Its as though we need a new word for these non-science related sciences. EDIT: I thought of it! Vanity Science.
      - urbanjunkie 15y ago
        Bridge building is accepted as engineering. Engineering is not science. Brunel could probably not have formulated the Theory of Relativity. Einstein could probably not have "built" the Great Western Railway. The application of science is not science.
        oldstrangers 15y ago
        So scientists create science, but non-scientists apply science? If a scientist were to ever apply science, perhaps like those working at CERN, they would ultimately become non-scientists? Wait, engineers _built_ CERN applying science, but scientists _use_ CERN ... using science. I think the only difference is that some scientists test science, and some scientists apply science. Is a doctor a scientist or an engineer? He's both testing and applying. Semantics are sometimes pretty stupid (or usually always), and honestly that's the only reason I'm pursuing this silly argument.

kevinalexbrown 15y ago

I'm planning to get a PhD in a science, so this is a question I've asked myself a lot. From a theoretical standpoint, a PhD is obviously not a magical "get good at science" button: there are plenty of other ways to gain competence. An example is Rick Stevens at Argonne National Labs, [1], who I'm pretty sure doesn't have a PhD (my friend worked for him once, and his bio doesn't mention it, but I don't know him personally). People like that show that a PhD is obviously not necessary to do first-class work. On the other hand, if you want to be a principal investigator on a grant of any decent size, almost no one will believe you have that competence without a PhD. Part of this is the ridiculously rigid US scientific job market: all the arbitrary structure of a resume, even less of the rationale. You can't get a postdoc, almost trivially, without a doctorate. Even if someone wanted to give you a job as a postdoc, the university wouldn't like it, and why choose the guy without the PhD when you have other talented people who also have those three letters? And it's really hard to get a faculty position without a postdoc, so there you go. So if I could go about becoming a principal investigator or having a nice faculty position without getting a PhD, I'd seriously consider it. But practically speaking, that's not a real possibility yet. Hopefully someday it will be. [1] http://www.anl.gov/Administration/Bios/stevens.html http://www.anl.gov/Administration/Bios/stevens.html

p4bl0 15y ago
I'm also planning to get a PhD in CS starting next year. But I think this question is irrelevant, in the sense that it is not the right one. Because of course the answer is formally "no", one can be a very good scientists without having a PhD. But do society needs people getting PhDs and people training them and the whole university system. Yes, definitely yes. And a PhD, even if not formally needed to be a good scientists, is an effective way to become a scientists since it's basically learning to be one with others who already are.
aroberge 15y ago
Sorry for stating the obvious but, Postdoc == Post-doctoral (fellowship). So, of course you can't get one without having doctoral degree. However, it is sometimes possible to work as a research assistant and end up doing very similar work, without requiring a Ph.D.

raphman 15y ago

One thing to note: There are a lot of differences between PhDs in different fields of research. Especially in biomed research, PhD students often seem to do extremely specialized research. Therefore, what they learn during their PhD may be much less generalizable than e.g. what CS PhD students learn. I guess it depends on the definition of a PhD whether it is necessary for a certain job or not. Interesting comments here: http://scientopia.org/blogs/science-professor/2011/03/22/rat-race/ http://scientopia.org/blogs/science-professor/2011/03/22/rat...

mvzink 15y ago
I'm still an undergrad and therefore naïve, but I had always thought PhDs were much more about proving they can perform research than "what they learn"
- Radim 15y ago
  You are correct; PhD is a degree where you are expected to demonstrate original research. See http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/ http://matt.might.net/articles/phd-school-in-pictures/ for a visual guide to academic degrees :)
- raphman 15y ago
  Maybe we should distinguish between the doctorate you get awarded for you PhD thesis (the proof that you can perform research) and the stuff you do during your PhD studies (what you learn). Depending on you advisor(s), your topic, your own knowledge and motivation, and many other factors, you may be able to conduct great research or mediocre research. Depending on how narrowly you focus, you may acquire more focused knowledge or more broad knowledge during your research. In fields like biomed research, you work on a very confined topic within a large team. You may only need to care about your specific experiment. Everything else is nothing you should (or need to) care about. Compare this to a typical CS PhD student at a German university (e.g. me). You more or less define the topic you want to work on by yourself, are required to teach courses, supervise students, occasionally work on a commercial project, and have to learn all that stuff which is necessary for your research, e.g. user studies, statistics, machine learning, electronics, etc. Having a PhD does not necessarily mean that you know how to perform proper research. I know of a good number of PhDs that have little knowledge of core scientific principles like correct attribution. In my opinion, what you learn on your journey to a PhD is much more important (in most cases) than the topic of your PhD thesis.

FaceKicker 15y ago

Disclosure: first-year CS Ph.D. student. I would say, no, a scientist doesn't really need a "Ph.D.", but does need the training that a Ph.D. involves. To me, this question is very different from the question of whether someone who wants to be an industry software engineer needs a bachelor's degree (a popular HN topic). The difference is that in a science Ph.D. program, you are doing science the entire time you are there. Sure, you take a few classes as well, but these are only to reinforce concepts you'll need in your research; the entire reason you're there is to learn to do scientific research by actually doing scientific research. You are doing at school what you'll be doing in your career; you're just getting paid less for it because you're "in training". I don't see any reason why one couldn't get a similar education by doing scientific research in an industry which does not result in a formal "Ph.D." degree, rather than an academic setting that does result in a Ph.D., it just doesn't seem like it's been tried up until (apparently) now. Personally (all other things being equal) I'd rather do a Ph.D. program in an academic setting because an industry setting would likely be constrained to research areas that are beneficial to the company.

tincholio 15y ago

No, but it helps. There are some very bright researchers who don't have one (Simon Peyton-Jones being one, for example), but they do help in forming people as scientists. Of course, working after getting your BSc. as a researcher on a specific area for many years is, in most aspects the same as doing a doctorate, so except for the lack of diploma, there probably shouldn't be a big difference.

timpeterson 15y ago

phd is dumb but skeptical china will be informative as a proving ground for this idea, do people think # of chinese nobel prize winners will increase in years to come? realize nobel prize is a western world creation but this makes like seem no...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_country http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nobel_laureates_by_coun...

ThomPete 15y ago

I guess the question is. Do you need a PhD to create scientific break-troughs or practice science. Cause that seems to be the only metrics worth considering when answering that question. I would guess the answer is no.

Radim 15y ago
No need to guess -- the answer to that question is "no". Universities started awarding PhD degrees at the (end of) the 19th century. If PhDs were a necessity for scientific breakthroughs, then there couldn't have been any scientific breakthroughs before the 19th century, a contradiction. QED. edit: but I got myself one just in case, anyway :)

WhatsHisName 15y ago

It's been my experience that most of these Chinese biotech companies are factories. One guy makes all the money and the rest do all the work. This is not at all like the computer technology model in the US.

hessenwolf 15y ago
Bioinformatics, and chemistry/material science areas seem to me to require way more semi-skilled labour in general than computer technology (even though I could still really do with a basic DBA or two and a low-level html-cranker).

Irishsteve 15y ago

From what I gather, the point of a phd is to train researchers so they can become independent researchers i.e set their own 'big question' and understand methodologies to solve it. This article states that the research direction in China is coming from external parties (I suppose commercial interests). So all thats happening really is that companies are finding ever cheaper sources of skilled labour to solve their current problems. Academic researcher ideally shouldn't be linked to a companies motivations... or at least not all of it.

hessenwolf 15y ago
Yes - any large research project like the one described needs hordes of gobots to do the labour and testing. This is not the same as having hordes of people who identify both important hypotheses, and the means by which they will be tested.

baddspellar 15y ago

A PhD is a credential, as is a BS, an MS, or a CCIE. As long as employers demand a credential for hiring, that credential will be necessary. In the US, few companies are willing to take on the burden of training scientific researchers. Further, much of the pure research in this country is done at Universities, and virtually all US universities require a PhD for tenure track faculty. So a PhD is a necessary credential to do scientific research in the US. The linked article states that Asian companies are willing to invest in training smart university graduates to do research. That means the PhD credential is not required. The required credential is instead a "University Degree". Now, if the question is whether the PhD system is the best way to create scientists, that's entirely different. There's no reason to believe the University PhD system necessarily produces better scientists than a corporate lab would. University professors are not necessarily good teachers, and University labs are not necessarily well equipped. It's very similar to the "BS or higher in Computer Science or Engineering" credential on help wanted ads in the US. Does that BS or higher really make you a better programmer than someone who learned on his/her own? Of course not. But it's a credential, so you get it. Disclaimer: I do have a PhD

PaulHoule 15y ago

Frankly, the PhD is not a path to a permanent job as a scientist unless your parents were scientists. What it is is a program to get cheap labor that has the energy and low health insurance costs of youth. At some point you get thrown away and they get somebody new. The reason why P.I.'s are aging is that there are very few permanent jobs for scientists. Perhaps these people in China are a bit more honest than the rest of us.

andrewl 15y ago

Yes and no. Yes if you're talking about having a chance of working in the US at the level lots of PhDs do (faculty at a university, principal investigator of a grant-funded project, etc.). No if you're just asking if you need a PhD to think and work independently at the level of a PhD in a given field. It's my understanding that Freeman Dyson does not have a PhD, for example. He's also a bad example, because he's Freeman Dyson, and most people are not. Outliers are often bad examples. I think it's still a good idea to go to finish college, although dropping out worked for Bill Gates and Steve Jobs.

larsberg 15y ago

All scientists start out without a PhD. Then, they do some research. At some point, they either have published enough novel papers or have done a single piece of novel work that advances the art and warrants granting of a PhD. If these students truly are primary authors on major papers in serious peer-reviewed journals, I predict that this lab will end up with some sort of joint academic agreement with a local university so that the ceremonial stapling of bio papers and minting of PhDs can be done. The rest of graduate school (classes, a master's thesis, etc.) is just scaffolding to acclimate you to doing research. If you can skip all of that and jump right in, nicely done! But, of those 500 kids mentioned in the Nature article, I predict many do not do top-quality published research. I would even bet their success rate (measured as "people who graduate from just running experiments other people designed") will be lower than that of a traditional PhD-granting institution, were I a betting man. The scaffolding is expensive, but is there for a reason beyond just tradition.

spodek 15y ago

I have a PhD in physics though I became an entrepreneur. My loose definition of science is that you observe, predict, experiment, and honestly report your results. Five-year-olds can do that. I have found exploring and studying nature one of the more rewarding and pleasurable parts of my life. I've done it as a member of academic institutions, but I also do it just walking in the park. Three things I wouldn't confuse: a) membership or funding in an academic institution b) recognition from peers c) practicing science I consider them orthogonal. I consider a) a job, b) a nice perk, and c) an enjoyable pasttime or hobby. Great when they overlap but unnecessary.

SilasX 15y ago
>My loose definition of science is that you observe, predict, experiment, and honestly report your results. I would add one more thing: you become aware of others' efforts to do the same and build off of their work rather than "re-invent the wheel". (That doesn't mean you take it uncritically, just that you know what has been tried.) That part is, AFAICT, what PhD programs most intensely focus on, i.e., make sure you understand the existing work well enough that you can build on it rather than just independently re-discover results in the field. That part is also (usually) beyond the reach of five-year-olds. Note: you can certainly still meet this requirement without an official PhD program, of course.

tokenadult 15y ago

Previous discussion 662 days ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1183828 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1183828