6 ms·

So, what is the solution? Fire all scientists? Close down all university research labs? And then when will that "saved" money go? A high-speed rail? I don't th

So, what is the solution? Fire all scientists? Close down all university research labs? And then when will that "saved" money go? A high-speed rail? I don't think so. A tax cut for private jet owners? Probably: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/feb/18/melanie-darrigo/tax-code-offers-write-offs-some-private-plane-purc/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2022/feb/18/melanie-da... With zero spending, there will be zero waste and corruption. I will create zero bugs if I write zero code. Just like VCs expect a tremendous amount of waste when going for wealth appreciation, so should countries expect waste when investing in science, research, and innovation. There will be waste, there will be fraud, but the options are either play the game or be left in the Middle Ages. In the same fashion, let's have innocent children go hungry because some adults abuse social programs. Let's stop all military R&D because some contractors are overcharging.

axus 3y ago
Reward boring and interesting results equally? Finance more independent attempts to reproduce interesting results?
- elcritch 3y ago
  Stop trying to "business-fy" research. The demand and drive to make research more efficient and business like hurts the point of academic research. It's similar to how the theory in business itself that the singular goal of public companies is to "increase shareholder value". Academic success can't be linked to just the number of papers produced or cited. Western cultures needs to go back to embracing plain old hard work and that business, research, etc all require difficult work and reflection at the top levels to function best.
  - nerdchum 3y ago
    I'm completely fine with academic success not being linked to any sort of outcome or result or increase in value to society. I just don't want them use my tax dollars to do it.
    - elcritch 3y ago
      That's self defeating though and precisely my point. The mindset that tax dollars should only be used to fund "valuable" research degrades the actual value of the research for society. Academic research should be funded because it's an important aspect of the human experience. The fact that it also leads to material benefits should be a knock on effect that's encouraged but not the core goal. It's a perfect example of Goodhart's law: "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law IMHO, accountability is great. It just requires difficult work at the top leadership to do so well. Just boiling it down to a single number like "economic value of research" doesn't work.
    - ivan_gammel 3y ago
      You can simply assume that your tax dollars do not fund science directly, it’s all other’s money and other people are fine with that. The budget pie is big and your contribution to it is going elsewhere, e.g. funding military or subsidizing some big corporations which in turn fund some private science.
      - nerdchum 3y ago
        It is because every dollar I spend is inflated by the government debt. https://www.worldometers.info/us-debt-clock/ https://www.worldometers.info/us-debt-clock/
        ivan_gammel 3y ago
        I don’t think there exists a conspiracy to dilute your contribution to US budget with more debt (if it did exist, it would be a very VC style conspiracy, so what not to like?).
        nerdchum 3y ago
        I don't think you understand how the debt works.
    - 3y ago
thereddaikon 3y ago
There is definitely room for reform in the "business" of academia. IE: in how research is published, checked, verified and funded. And how Universities interact with it. There is a clear problem in how things are incentivized and it is encouraging misconduct.
- renegade-otter 3y ago
  Sure, but to what point? "We spent 1 million dollars on oversight, and the 100 thousand dollar project is now completely free of fraud"
  - nerdchum 3y ago
    Nope. I think this is better: We spent zero citizens tax dollars on science grants and all scientists had to get venture capitalist funding like the rest of the world.
Clubber 3y ago
That's a lot of straw men you put up there to knock down. Maybe have a whistleblower hotline for academic fraud. I'll bet some of the grad students knew what was going on. That one guy's selfishness tarnished the schools reputation for probably a generation.
- algoatecorn 3y ago
  Sometimes they are the ones doing it if their visa is on the line.
- P_I_Staker 3y ago
  They don't want the whistle blown.
nerdchum 3y ago
99% of modern scientists would not make it out of series A funding from VCs yet the government keeps throwing millions at them because they keep publishing papers even if the papers provide no value to society. And the people in charge of giving the funding went to the same elite universities as most of the people that are getting the funding. Theres zero accountability. Modern science industry is a massive scam. Its literally theft. And hasn't produced much applicable to the actual world in decades. The solution is to eliminate white collar welfare and make the scientists get their own funding like an entrepreneur or an artist or literally any other field.
- ivan_gammel 3y ago
  That will not advance science much because of completely wrong incentives. Scientific knowledge does not always have to be monetized and often is impossible to monetize, yet it is extremely valuable. Just a few examples: 1. Verification of prior research that produced negative results (e.g. proved some hypothesis wrong). VCs may want to take the risk and fund the original research, but what’s the risk model in verifying the negative results? 2. Theoretical research that will yield practical results only in 50+ years. No VC would wait that long (what share of fusion research was funded by VCs in the last 50 years?) 3. Research that undermines capitalist model, e.g. by demonstrating the necessity to increase taxes or altering redistribution to reduce inequality. The society will clearly benefit from it, but what could a VC gain from that?
  - nerdchum 3y ago
    Science is not advancing much now! What is it produced in the past decade?? Past 30 years?? I've been on this earth for many decades and (other than the internet developed by the military)...the TRILLIONS of tax dollars that have gone into science have yielded nothing to minimal application to my life. I completely understand your idealistic version of blue sky science needing disinterested non-results-based funding.... but that just turns to corruption and using our tax dollars wastefully with no results with the perpetual excuse of: "it's blue sky research I don't have to prove anything to you just give me more money" and I've worked in labs and universities and I can 100% tell you scientific corruption with tax dollars is more the rule than the exception.
ivan_gammel 3y ago
There’s plenty of opportunities to reform the scientific organization and science in general. 1. Get rid of scientific journals, replace them with databases of scientific results and raw data. A paper may explain the result, but looking at the database must be enough. Assign credibility score based on independent verifications/confirmation of trustworthiness by other leading experts in the field. Negative results, verifications of known facts should have equal significance there. Theories must be peer-reviewed first. In some scientific field this may significantly change how the research is made, probably for good (it’s fun to read papers in certain fields where authors disagree with another scientist because of some gut feeling). 2. Get rid of degrees and titles - they do not age well without continuous learning and participation in research. Bachelors and doctors should have had an expiration date. Credibility of a person must be based on exams, certifications and scientific results accepted by others and as such always has certain age. A scientist who became an expert by verifying a lot of other’s works may be more credible expert than someone who made one new discovery. The weight that this scientist puts behind each verified result must boost its credibility significantly, but if the reputation is damaged it must cascade to everything downstream. 3. Management career track must be separated from professional track: head of a lab must not be the best expert and should not be the first name on a published result. Leadership skills, ethical code and ability to assemble a great team must be more important. Choice of the direction of research must be a team decision.

axus 3y ago

Reward boring and interesting results equally? Finance more independent attempts to reproduce interesting results?

elcritch 3y ago
Stop trying to "business-fy" research. The demand and drive to make research more efficient and business like hurts the point of academic research. It's similar to how the theory in business itself that the singular goal of public companies is to "increase shareholder value". Academic success can't be linked to just the number of papers produced or cited. Western cultures needs to go back to embracing plain old hard work and that business, research, etc all require difficult work and reflection at the top levels to function best.
- nerdchum 3y ago
  I'm completely fine with academic success not being linked to any sort of outcome or result or increase in value to society. I just don't want them use my tax dollars to do it.
  - elcritch 3y ago
    That's self defeating though and precisely my point. The mindset that tax dollars should only be used to fund "valuable" research degrades the actual value of the research for society. Academic research should be funded because it's an important aspect of the human experience. The fact that it also leads to material benefits should be a knock on effect that's encouraged but not the core goal. It's a perfect example of Goodhart's law: "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodhart%27s_law IMHO, accountability is great. It just requires difficult work at the top leadership to do so well. Just boiling it down to a single number like "economic value of research" doesn't work.
  - ivan_gammel 3y ago
    You can simply assume that your tax dollars do not fund science directly, it’s all other’s money and other people are fine with that. The budget pie is big and your contribution to it is going elsewhere, e.g. funding military or subsidizing some big corporations which in turn fund some private science.
    - nerdchum 3y ago
      It is because every dollar I spend is inflated by the government debt. https://www.worldometers.info/us-debt-clock/ https://www.worldometers.info/us-debt-clock/
      - ivan_gammel 3y ago
        I don’t think there exists a conspiracy to dilute your contribution to US budget with more debt (if it did exist, it would be a very VC style conspiracy, so what not to like?).
        nerdchum 3y ago
        I don't think you understand how the debt works.
  - 3y ago

thereddaikon 3y ago

There is definitely room for reform in the "business" of academia. IE: in how research is published, checked, verified and funded. And how Universities interact with it. There is a clear problem in how things are incentivized and it is encouraging misconduct.

renegade-otter 3y ago
Sure, but to what point? "We spent 1 million dollars on oversight, and the 100 thousand dollar project is now completely free of fraud"
- nerdchum 3y ago
  Nope. I think this is better: We spent zero citizens tax dollars on science grants and all scientists had to get venture capitalist funding like the rest of the world.

Clubber 3y ago

That's a lot of straw men you put up there to knock down. Maybe have a whistleblower hotline for academic fraud. I'll bet some of the grad students knew what was going on. That one guy's selfishness tarnished the schools reputation for probably a generation.

algoatecorn 3y ago
Sometimes they are the ones doing it if their visa is on the line.
P_I_Staker 3y ago
They don't want the whistle blown.

nerdchum 3y ago

99% of modern scientists would not make it out of series A funding from VCs yet the government keeps throwing millions at them because they keep publishing papers even if the papers provide no value to society. And the people in charge of giving the funding went to the same elite universities as most of the people that are getting the funding. Theres zero accountability. Modern science industry is a massive scam. Its literally theft. And hasn't produced much applicable to the actual world in decades. The solution is to eliminate white collar welfare and make the scientists get their own funding like an entrepreneur or an artist or literally any other field.

ivan_gammel 3y ago
That will not advance science much because of completely wrong incentives. Scientific knowledge does not always have to be monetized and often is impossible to monetize, yet it is extremely valuable. Just a few examples: 1. Verification of prior research that produced negative results (e.g. proved some hypothesis wrong). VCs may want to take the risk and fund the original research, but what’s the risk model in verifying the negative results? 2. Theoretical research that will yield practical results only in 50+ years. No VC would wait that long (what share of fusion research was funded by VCs in the last 50 years?) 3. Research that undermines capitalist model, e.g. by demonstrating the necessity to increase taxes or altering redistribution to reduce inequality. The society will clearly benefit from it, but what could a VC gain from that?
- nerdchum 3y ago
  Science is not advancing much now! What is it produced in the past decade?? Past 30 years?? I've been on this earth for many decades and (other than the internet developed by the military)...the TRILLIONS of tax dollars that have gone into science have yielded nothing to minimal application to my life. I completely understand your idealistic version of blue sky science needing disinterested non-results-based funding.... but that just turns to corruption and using our tax dollars wastefully with no results with the perpetual excuse of: "it's blue sky research I don't have to prove anything to you just give me more money" and I've worked in labs and universities and I can 100% tell you scientific corruption with tax dollars is more the rule than the exception.

ivan_gammel 3y ago

There’s plenty of opportunities to reform the scientific organization and science in general. 1. Get rid of scientific journals, replace them with databases of scientific results and raw data. A paper may explain the result, but looking at the database must be enough. Assign credibility score based on independent verifications/confirmation of trustworthiness by other leading experts in the field. Negative results, verifications of known facts should have equal significance there. Theories must be peer-reviewed first. In some scientific field this may significantly change how the research is made, probably for good (it’s fun to read papers in certain fields where authors disagree with another scientist because of some gut feeling). 2. Get rid of degrees and titles - they do not age well without continuous learning and participation in research. Bachelors and doctors should have had an expiration date. Credibility of a person must be based on exams, certifications and scientific results accepted by others and as such always has certain age. A scientist who became an expert by verifying a lot of other’s works may be more credible expert than someone who made one new discovery. The weight that this scientist puts behind each verified result must boost its credibility significantly, but if the reputation is damaged it must cascade to everything downstream. 3. Management career track must be separated from professional track: head of a lab must not be the best expert and should not be the first name on a published result. Leadership skills, ethical code and ability to assemble a great team must be more important. Choice of the direction of research must be a team decision.