3 ms·

The article states that this researcher falsified data. While I rather abhor dishonesty, especially being a former academic myself, one must keep in mind the fo

The article states that this researcher falsified data. While I rather abhor dishonesty, especially being a former academic myself, one must keep in mind the following: 90% of academia is rotten in the sense that the research being done is being done because the academic path requires some kind of research. This in turn is the case because research groups and departments want to keep themselves alive, and the only way to stay alive is gain funding. Finally, and worst of all, gaining funding has been almost entirely divorced from the usefulness that research has to people. On the counterpoint, I do support basic research and curiosity, which I fundamentally believe has value to societies, but the research being done is hardly out of curiosity. Instead, these perverse incentives have led to an environment where basic curiosity is paradoxically discouraged. The end result is that large portions of academia are filled with useless machines doing useless work. As a result, we're getting these pathological cases. And we can think about this fraud on one more level: don't think that it will necessarily hurt academia....a fraud is necessary every once in a while so that everyone else shines just a little brighter.

itsoktocry 3y ago
>Finally, and worst of all, gaining funding has been almost entirely divorced from the usefulness that research has to people. By "usefulness to people" do you mean, essentially, "good for society"? Because I have a hard time believing that funding entities are simply flushing money down the toilet. They must find the research useful to their ends.
- vouaobrasil 3y ago
  Yes, I mean good for society. They are not flushing money down the toilet: who do you think makes funding decisions? Who do you think reads the funding proposals? Scientists. Scientists are giving money to each other to keep their efforts alive. Scientists don't do things for the good of humankind, they do it for fame and pure intellectual curiosity. Of course, there are benefits to those outside of science: science furthers the growth of technology, but is that really beneficial to us? Yes, we are thrown a bone now and then that is useful such as a vaccine here and there, but the the benefits that actually make life better probably account for 1% of scientific activity these days.
- red_admiral 3y ago
  There is definitely a lot of money thrown after whatever the current buzzword is - we had blockchain, now we hve AI; sustainability is also a big one in some places. That doesn't mean that there's not great things one could achieve for society in both the AI and sustainability fields, but having the correct keywords on your project proposal goes a long way even if you quite obviously don't have a clue what those words mean.
BurningFrog 3y ago
I've come to think we need to ignore the current science system/establishment and start over with something¹ better. ¹ To be determined :)
- vouaobrasil 3y ago
  For the most part, I absolutely do agree with you. I would say something like more traditional knowledge emphasizing the relationship with the earth. I would get rid of 90% of science, at least.

itsoktocry 3y ago

>Finally, and worst of all, gaining funding has been almost entirely divorced from the usefulness that research has to people. By "usefulness to people" do you mean, essentially, "good for society"? Because I have a hard time believing that funding entities are simply flushing money down the toilet. They must find the research useful to their ends.

vouaobrasil 3y ago
Yes, I mean good for society. They are not flushing money down the toilet: who do you think makes funding decisions? Who do you think reads the funding proposals? Scientists. Scientists are giving money to each other to keep their efforts alive. Scientists don't do things for the good of humankind, they do it for fame and pure intellectual curiosity. Of course, there are benefits to those outside of science: science furthers the growth of technology, but is that really beneficial to us? Yes, we are thrown a bone now and then that is useful such as a vaccine here and there, but the the benefits that actually make life better probably account for 1% of scientific activity these days.
red_admiral 3y ago
There is definitely a lot of money thrown after whatever the current buzzword is - we had blockchain, now we hve AI; sustainability is also a big one in some places. That doesn't mean that there's not great things one could achieve for society in both the AI and sustainability fields, but having the correct keywords on your project proposal goes a long way even if you quite obviously don't have a clue what those words mean.

BurningFrog 3y ago

I've come to think we need to ignore the current science system/establishment and start over with something¹ better. ¹ To be determined :)

vouaobrasil 3y ago
For the most part, I absolutely do agree with you. I would say something like more traditional knowledge emphasizing the relationship with the earth. I would get rid of 90% of science, at least.