9 ms·

A good reminder that academic institutions often fail to recognize the best in their ranks. From this NYTimes article: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/08/health

by trauco 3y ago

A good reminder that academic institutions often fail to recognize the best in their ranks. From this NYTimes article: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/08/health/coronavirus-mrna-kariko.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/08/health/coronavirus-mrna-k... About Dr. Kariko: "But for many years her career at the University of Pennsylvania was fragile. She migrated from lab to lab, relying on one senior scientist after another to take her in. She never made more than $60,000 a year"

f6v 3y ago
> A good reminder that academic Unlike industry, where there’s no internal politics and everything is merit-based.
specialist 3y ago
> often fail to recognize the best in their ranks I know it's a dumb cultural cite, but I keep thinking of the "12th man" scene from the movie (book too?) "World War Z". The Israeli is explaining that his job is to disagree with the consensus. Just in case. Who is then given charter and resources to plan accordingly. Just in case. I hope there's many buckets of research funds. With a modest bucket for long shots. And perhaps a smaller bucket for loonie tunes. Where by formalizing that model would preempt all the reactionary "omgherd golden fleece!?" outbursts. As a taxpayer, I'd be thrilled if researchers, artists, journalists, musicians, and misc crazies got some kind of UBI, to do their work without starving. Considering the scale of all the usual waste and pork, genius grants wouldn't be more than a round-off error. With a payout of 1:1000, it'd be a bargain for society. Smartest investments ever.
wolverine876 3y ago
It seems more as a status issue to me: Kariko had a PhD from Hungary, was a post-doc at Temple U. - not an elite pedigree. At Penn, an elite school: "It was a low-level position, research assistant professor, and never meant to lead to a permanent tenured position." and after that boss left, "Dr. Kariko was left without a lab or financial support. She could stay at Penn only if she found another lab to take her on. “They expected I would quit,” she said. Universities only support low-level Ph.D.s for a limited amount of time, Dr. Langer said: “If they don’t get a grant, they will let them go.” Dr. Kariko “was not a great grant writer,” ... Kariko was slotted into the non-tenure / adjunct role, and it didn't matter what they did. It happens in private industry too. The problem is elitism overlooking talent and production. It's a brazen, obvious flaw. The US long had the culture - imperfect, of course - of an active rejection of elitism, class, etc. 'All men are created equal', 'every man a king', meritocracy, hard work, you can accomplish anything if you work hard enough, the land of opportuity, the American Dream, etc. That equality, the respect for others, is the foundation of voting - you respect everyone's right to have input and its value. The dominant fashion, a sort of neo-reactionaryism, is to reject that, deride it, rather than aggressively moving it forward. Many people look for ways to justify prejudice, to exclude, to embrace personal ego and greed and to mock public good. I think that's because if you embrace universal rights, opportunity, equality, etc., you can't avoid 'liberal' ideals too, and those are the target of reactionaryism.
- fatherzine 3y ago
  "active rejection of elitism". Not really. In US 'elite' means money wealth, whereas in historical Europe 'elite' means martial nobility. Anecdata: the very concept of 'legacy admission' is overtly classist, and simply does not exist in continental Europe. US is very much elitist, it's just that its manifestation of elitism is less obvious to the unsuspecting eye.
  - inglor_cz 3y ago
    Is there any non-elitist country out there? Humans tend to socially stratify even in relatively modest conditions (such as tribal life). What really matters is if the elite is closed or relatively permeable, and how it treats the non-elite. What the founding generation of America rejected, was inheritance of elite status, but I don't think they were completely egalitarian either. After all, people like Jefferson and Washington were highly regarded by their peers.
    - wolverine876 3y ago
      > Is there any non-elitist country out there? You could also ask, 'is there any elitist country out there?'. There is no perfectly elitst or non-elitist. The differences are matters of degree. Some countries have castes and royalty that last forever. Others at least advocate social mobility and work at it. > people like Jefferson and Washington were highly regarded by their peers 'Highly regarded' and elitist are very different.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    Again, it's not at all perfect, but it has certainly been a widely held value and objective. Think of the overt humility of Washington, Lincoln, and most American leaders until around seven years ago.
IOT_Apprentice 3y ago
She was also demoted at U Penn. She is now working at a university in her homeland.
- esafak 3y ago
  https://billypenn.com/2020/12/29/university-pennsylvania-covid-vaccine-mrna-kariko-demoted-biontech-pfizer/ https://billypenn.com/2020/12/29/university-pennsylvania-cov...
kevmo 3y ago
And her daughter won 2 Olympic gold medals! That family must be intense!
- xattt 3y ago
  The perspective from the inside is pretty different from the outside. High-functioning families see their achievements as “normal” while the rest of the community looks around in awe.
  - sdfghswe 3y ago
    Yes. That's because "high-functioning families" compare themselves with those who are better, not those who are worse. They go "sure I got 2 olympic medals, but bob and suse also got 2 each. It's not a big deal". They never dwell in thoughts like "I got 2 olympic medals, and look at the billions of people who got zero." It's just a culture of self-improvement.
    - anonporridge 3y ago
      It's just what happens whenever you rise in the ranks of any domain. People in the 99th percentile aren't super happy and satisfied that they've outcompeted 99% of the participating population who look at them with awe and envy. They're comparing themselves to the 99.9th percentile who leave them in awe and envy. I think it's important for any high performer to occasionally step out of their narrow perception of the world and really grok how far ahead they are compared to everyone else. This is definitely something a lot of my high income tech friends could learn to appreciate when they get caught up feeling like a loser for only making $250k total comp.
      - xattt 3y ago
        > I think it's important for any high performer to occasionally step out of their narrow perception of the world and really grok how far ahead they are compared to everyone else. A (pre-Putin) Russian proverb goes it’s better to be first in the village, than it is to be last in the city.
elashri 3y ago
To be honest and in this context. Nobel prize committees doesn't do any better and have history of failing in recognizing great scientific achievements until long time passes [1] (and sometimes scientists die before that which disqualify them from the prize) [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03086-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03086-3
- ramraj07 3y ago
  In that vein what institution in the history of mankind ever been fair and objective more than this?
  - pokepim 3y ago
    [dead]
- empath-nirvana 3y ago
  They only give one per year and there's probably more than one nobel prize worthy achievement every year on average, so they end up with a backlog. Unless something huge happens in a given year like the Higgs, they're probably going to reach back as far as they can for a worthy award to make sure people get the awards before they die.
  - Ekaros 3y ago
    Also Higgs probably falls in that category too. His original research was almost 50 years old... Only receiving award after it was confirmed with testing.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
arbuge 3y ago
The class of people who seem to do well in academia these days are those focused on grinding out masses of papers on incremental advances. Professors good at writing grant applications do well too, because with those grants they can afford to hire lots of graduate students to help with those incremental advances and masses of papers. Individuals focused on real discovery and not publishing much until they really have something significant to say don't fit into this well.
- jjtheblunt 3y ago
  I wonder if there's a way to measure the proportions of impactful science coming from private companies versus universities. Perhaps measure by field, too, since the proprotions may differ in genomics vs electrical engineering, for example. I don't have any idea how to calculate those proportions, but it's an awesome puzzle.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    Private companies are interested in profitable science, not impactful science. In fact it can have negative impact: Discovering a way to extend intellectual property rights for an expiring patent, or a formulation that they can charge more for. Discovering a cheap cure for cancer wouldn't help profits. And have their own internal politics - they want science that does not disrupt the VP/CEO's plans, or make the chief scientist look bad.
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
      > Discovering a cheap cure for cancer wouldn't help profits. Hence patents. The new Hep C treatments are hundreds of thousands of dollars cheaper than older treatments, but were still researched and developed.
  - mananaysiempre 3y ago
    Many companies, unfortunately, go out of their way to not produce meaningful science in the sense of publicly available (trade secrets) or publicly usable (patents) knowledge. Biotech especially.
relativ575 3y ago
Survivor bias. This is what often mentioned in any thread about business success, yet nobody has mentioned it here. Institutions also often don't recognize researches that end up going nowhere. What we can say is that finding a gem is hard because of abundance of noise.

by trauco 3y ago

f6v 3y ago

> A good reminder that academic Unlike industry, where there’s no internal politics and everything is merit-based.

specialist 3y ago

> often fail to recognize the best in their ranks I know it's a dumb cultural cite, but I keep thinking of the "12th man" scene from the movie (book too?) "World War Z". The Israeli is explaining that his job is to disagree with the consensus. Just in case. Who is then given charter and resources to plan accordingly. Just in case. I hope there's many buckets of research funds. With a modest bucket for long shots. And perhaps a smaller bucket for loonie tunes. Where by formalizing that model would preempt all the reactionary "omgherd golden fleece!?" outbursts. As a taxpayer, I'd be thrilled if researchers, artists, journalists, musicians, and misc crazies got some kind of UBI, to do their work without starving. Considering the scale of all the usual waste and pork, genius grants wouldn't be more than a round-off error. With a payout of 1:1000, it'd be a bargain for society. Smartest investments ever.

wolverine876 3y ago

It seems more as a status issue to me: Kariko had a PhD from Hungary, was a post-doc at Temple U. - not an elite pedigree. At Penn, an elite school: "It was a low-level position, research assistant professor, and never meant to lead to a permanent tenured position." and after that boss left, "Dr. Kariko was left without a lab or financial support. She could stay at Penn only if she found another lab to take her on. “They expected I would quit,” she said. Universities only support low-level Ph.D.s for a limited amount of time, Dr. Langer said: “If they don’t get a grant, they will let them go.” Dr. Kariko “was not a great grant writer,” ... Kariko was slotted into the non-tenure / adjunct role, and it didn't matter what they did. It happens in private industry too. The problem is elitism overlooking talent and production. It's a brazen, obvious flaw. The US long had the culture - imperfect, of course - of an active rejection of elitism, class, etc. 'All men are created equal', 'every man a king', meritocracy, hard work, you can accomplish anything if you work hard enough, the land of opportuity, the American Dream, etc. That equality, the respect for others, is the foundation of voting - you respect everyone's right to have input and its value. The dominant fashion, a sort of neo-reactionaryism, is to reject that, deride it, rather than aggressively moving it forward. Many people look for ways to justify prejudice, to exclude, to embrace personal ego and greed and to mock public good. I think that's because if you embrace universal rights, opportunity, equality, etc., you can't avoid 'liberal' ideals too, and those are the target of reactionaryism.

fatherzine 3y ago
"active rejection of elitism". Not really. In US 'elite' means money wealth, whereas in historical Europe 'elite' means martial nobility. Anecdata: the very concept of 'legacy admission' is overtly classist, and simply does not exist in continental Europe. US is very much elitist, it's just that its manifestation of elitism is less obvious to the unsuspecting eye.
- inglor_cz 3y ago
  Is there any non-elitist country out there? Humans tend to socially stratify even in relatively modest conditions (such as tribal life). What really matters is if the elite is closed or relatively permeable, and how it treats the non-elite. What the founding generation of America rejected, was inheritance of elite status, but I don't think they were completely egalitarian either. After all, people like Jefferson and Washington were highly regarded by their peers.
  - wolverine876 3y ago
    > Is there any non-elitist country out there? You could also ask, 'is there any elitist country out there?'. There is no perfectly elitst or non-elitist. The differences are matters of degree. Some countries have castes and royalty that last forever. Others at least advocate social mobility and work at it. > people like Jefferson and Washington were highly regarded by their peers 'Highly regarded' and elitist are very different.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  Again, it's not at all perfect, but it has certainly been a widely held value and objective. Think of the overt humility of Washington, Lincoln, and most American leaders until around seven years ago.

IOT_Apprentice 3y ago

She was also demoted at U Penn. She is now working at a university in her homeland.

esafak 3y ago
https://billypenn.com/2020/12/29/university-pennsylvania-covid-vaccine-mrna-kariko-demoted-biontech-pfizer/ https://billypenn.com/2020/12/29/university-pennsylvania-cov...

kevmo 3y ago

And her daughter won 2 Olympic gold medals! That family must be intense!

xattt 3y ago
The perspective from the inside is pretty different from the outside. High-functioning families see their achievements as “normal” while the rest of the community looks around in awe.
- sdfghswe 3y ago
  Yes. That's because "high-functioning families" compare themselves with those who are better, not those who are worse. They go "sure I got 2 olympic medals, but bob and suse also got 2 each. It's not a big deal". They never dwell in thoughts like "I got 2 olympic medals, and look at the billions of people who got zero." It's just a culture of self-improvement.
  - anonporridge 3y ago
    It's just what happens whenever you rise in the ranks of any domain. People in the 99th percentile aren't super happy and satisfied that they've outcompeted 99% of the participating population who look at them with awe and envy. They're comparing themselves to the 99.9th percentile who leave them in awe and envy. I think it's important for any high performer to occasionally step out of their narrow perception of the world and really grok how far ahead they are compared to everyone else. This is definitely something a lot of my high income tech friends could learn to appreciate when they get caught up feeling like a loser for only making $250k total comp.
    - xattt 3y ago
      > I think it's important for any high performer to occasionally step out of their narrow perception of the world and really grok how far ahead they are compared to everyone else. A (pre-Putin) Russian proverb goes it’s better to be first in the village, than it is to be last in the city.

elashri 3y ago

To be honest and in this context. Nobel prize committees doesn't do any better and have history of failing in recognizing great scientific achievements until long time passes [1] (and sometimes scientists die before that which disqualify them from the prize) [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03086-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-03086-3

ramraj07 3y ago
In that vein what institution in the history of mankind ever been fair and objective more than this?
- pokepim 3y ago
  [dead]
empath-nirvana 3y ago
They only give one per year and there's probably more than one nobel prize worthy achievement every year on average, so they end up with a backlog. Unless something huge happens in a given year like the Higgs, they're probably going to reach back as far as they can for a worthy award to make sure people get the awards before they die.
- Ekaros 3y ago
  Also Higgs probably falls in that category too. His original research was almost 50 years old... Only receiving award after it was confirmed with testing.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

arbuge 3y ago

The class of people who seem to do well in academia these days are those focused on grinding out masses of papers on incremental advances. Professors good at writing grant applications do well too, because with those grants they can afford to hire lots of graduate students to help with those incremental advances and masses of papers. Individuals focused on real discovery and not publishing much until they really have something significant to say don't fit into this well.

jjtheblunt 3y ago
I wonder if there's a way to measure the proportions of impactful science coming from private companies versus universities. Perhaps measure by field, too, since the proprotions may differ in genomics vs electrical engineering, for example. I don't have any idea how to calculate those proportions, but it's an awesome puzzle.
- wolverine876 3y ago
  Private companies are interested in profitable science, not impactful science. In fact it can have negative impact: Discovering a way to extend intellectual property rights for an expiring patent, or a formulation that they can charge more for. Discovering a cheap cure for cancer wouldn't help profits. And have their own internal politics - they want science that does not disrupt the VP/CEO's plans, or make the chief scientist look bad.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    > Discovering a cheap cure for cancer wouldn't help profits. Hence patents. The new Hep C treatments are hundreds of thousands of dollars cheaper than older treatments, but were still researched and developed.
- mananaysiempre 3y ago
  Many companies, unfortunately, go out of their way to not produce meaningful science in the sense of publicly available (trade secrets) or publicly usable (patents) knowledge. Biotech especially.

relativ575 3y ago

Survivor bias. This is what often mentioned in any thread about business success, yet nobody has mentioned it here. Institutions also often don't recognize researches that end up going nowhere. What we can say is that finding a gem is hard because of abundance of noise.