6 ms·
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 wr
by 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 agoI 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 agoPrivate 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 agoMany 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.
- radus 3y agoHow is that different from any profit seeking endeavor? You could write the same company about software companies that don't open source all of their code..
- mananaysiempre 3y agoFundamentally, it isn‘t. Practically, some industries are more open about their work than others—computer graphics (both game and cinematic) come to mind as an example on the opposite end of the spectrum from the secretive worlds of biotech or (say) semiconductor manufacturing. My point was only that (by the definition I think makes the most sense here) they are doing science to the exact extent they give up the intellectual-property monopoly, whatever that extent happens to be.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoSo all the folks doing experiments on telescopes, astronomy, etc., without publicizing it during Medieval Europe were not doing science?
- mananaysiempre 3y agoI mean, there’s definitely a date in the past before which this definition is not useful. On the other hand, if a human learns something new, but nobody else does as a consequence of that, has human knowledge advanced? There are always edge cases—occasionally the mere awareness that something is possible has allowed others to rediscover the method—but generally I’d say no. That does not mean that dissemination of new information has to work like it does now. The Republic of Letters was very different but quite successful. But if you have taken no effort to make your discovery available to others, I’d say you’re not advancing the cause of human learning; if you have taken effort to ensure it is not available, like what many patents aim for nowadays, I’d say you’re working against it.
- adrian_b 3y agoThe folks doing experiments on telescopes, astronomy, etc., during Medieval Europe, almost always made great efforts to publicize their work. On the other hand, those who at the same time were experts in, for instance, making shoes, made efforts to keep secret their techniques.
- wolverine876 3y agoJust for context, what experience is that based on? What fields in academia? Do you work there or have friends there?
- quantum_magpie 3y agoI am in academia and I see the same thing among my colleagues. In physics and chemistry. I also see a lot of data manipulation, lies in methodology, omission of any flaws in the studies, just to get published. Because that is the only measure of your value ti the institution. Fuck, even the head of the institution publicly announced that only quantity matters, not quality. Because the government funding for research also depends only on quantity.
- arbuge 3y ago>> what experience is that based on? Graduate school, MS at Harvard & MIT, PhD at UIUC. Both my MS and PhD supervisors were brilliant and strongly believed in publishing only when they had something real to talk about, which I respected a lot. But it was clear this wasn't what the top professors were doing. They were running paper mills. >> What fields in academia? Elec engineering & CS. >> Do you work there or have friends there I don't work there, although I was offered several positions. This culture is pretty much why I chose industry. In the real world, most customers care about real achievements. Lots of friends, yes.
- eigenvalue 3y agoYes, or in the social sciences, those who just make up fake data and come up with catchy, media-friendly summaries! See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37714898 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37714898
- queuebert 3y agoThis is especially true in U.S. health sciences, where to get money from the NIH, you must plan and describe the outcome of the next 3-5 yrs of research. It's not acceptable to say, "We're going to explore this area for 5 years and see what we find and hope for a surprise." Obviously, you then only get very incremental, low-risk, low-reward research, but high-profile scientists who mainly serve on the committees at the NIH and dole out funding get to keep their small business (err, I mean lab) going with minimal disruption in funding.
- didntknowya 3y agoyeh unfortunately most of the best professors spend the majority of their time applying for grants for their students, going to conference, doing admin etc rather than work in a lab
- sambazi 3y ago> Individuals focused on real discovery and not publishing much until they really have something significant to say don't fit into this well. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/06/peter-higgs-boson-academic-system https://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/06/peter-higgs-...
- lost_tourist 3y agoThey are more likely to be able to recognize talented grad students and build an army of them to pump out good (great?) papers and hit up the conference circuit.
- kiba 3y agoMaybe we should bring back the concept of the gentleman(gentleperson for the modern era) scientist, who are both independent and wealthy. Charles Darwin, for example, was born into wealth and doesn't really need to work for a living.
- dekhn 3y agoThere are several SROs ("Scientific Research Organizations") funded by extremely wealthy folks (typically made their billions in tech). They can offer scientists a number of nice things that universities can't- for example, Arc Institute, created by Patrick Collison among others, has plenty of lab space and computing for its members, compared to the space and computing available on campuses like UCSF and Stanford.
- bigbacaloa 3y ago[dead]
- f6v 3y agoYes, I’m willing to accept donations to become multimillionaire and do science. Cash or check from you?
- esafak 3y agoRich people today fund the people that do the work, rather than do it themselves. I'd say the new way is more productive.
- renewiltord 3y agoThat never went away. We just have multiple avenues: 1. Government funded research 2. Private industrial research 3. Private personal research Usually, those involved in #3 are made fun of constantly by the lumpenproles. Before someone in category #3 makes it they look like Bryan Johnson doing Blueprint. That's the defining characteristic, actually. If you were to look at Ms. Kariko before she was successful, the majority of HN users would have made fun of her.
- dkqmduems 3y ago