4 ms·

I have a problem with this. In the old days, people did research for the sake of research, and mostly out of Europe came the greatest scientific works we have s

I have a problem with this. In the old days, people did research for the sake of research, and mostly out of Europe came the greatest scientific works we have seen. I did my PhD in the US, and it is very unfortunate that "gaming" publications and focusing on "grants" is the meat of research. Before I get criticized, I was part of this process at a top 10 university and I am a proud American. It is because of this pride that I must show tough love. I chose to move away from academia without a postdoc because I hated it. I wanted to do research and contribute to work that pushes my field forward. Most (90% of those I met, and I dare say 99% of international students) only wanted a PhD for selfish reasons (entry to US market, salary bump, changing fields, access to RnD jobs, etc). Perhaps I am naive, but I wish more people did research for the sake of research. The only Clay prize went to a Russian who hated academia. Perhaps there is some truth in the fact the immortals in science are not those churning conference papers, but those laying seeds a la Laplace, Einstein, etc. I want to see more of those, because this is what will move the field forward. It is not manipulating metrics to improve a neural network for one use case, while knowing (and not sharing) it fails in every other instance. This is my second beef with research. When something is tried but does not work, it is not shared. Someone else will try and fail, and this build up will overall slow everyone down. I wish we were more accepting of failed trials, and of not knowing the answer (sharing results without the theory is OKAY. It is OKAY if someone else comes up with it using your results. Having spent many years in a PhD, I can confirm the vast majority unfortunately do not share my point of view. And I hope I do not come across as bitter, it frankly makes me sad.

geokon 1y ago
I think a more charitable reading is that these are just basic suggestions about how to make one's writing clear and get your point across. It's hard to step back and look at what you write from the perspective of someone not familiar with the subject matter (ie. the reviewer). Sure it's framed in terms of "helping you get published" (which feels kind of gross) but I think ultimately it's really about tips for authors to get their points across in a clear and engaging way.
jszymborski 1y ago
I mean, at some point science is communication. Great for Einstein if he gets general relativity, but if he wants anyone else to care, he needs to communicate not only the complex idea in a clear manner, but also _why_ I should spend my cherished minutes here on earth trying to wrap my small brain around it. It's the difference between being a Cassandra or the Oracle at Delphi. Maybe the only difference between the two was presentation? (Classicists, feel free to roast my metaphor).
- abetusk 1y ago
  The argument is about pursuing research for discovery or pursuing research for career advancement. Both scenarios require communication but for different reasons. You're not really addressing main critique.
  - jszymborski 1y ago
    > I did my PhD in the US, and it is very unfortunate that "gaming" publications and focusing on "grants" is the meat of research. I interpreted GPs above statement as reacting to the strategies in the article for "gaming" publications and grants, but perhaps I misunderstood GPs comment.
    - MPSFounder 1y ago
      My argument is time vested into this is time away from discovery and research. Communication is certainly a valuable skills. But by most accounts, significant effort is spent on grants and to make publications appealing to employers (the author himself argues for fun branding in a scientific paper). Instead, I argue the focus should be on advancing the field. Of course, you can argue that conference papers with fun branding and a neural network improvement in one benchmark (where selection bias makes the model look robust), is advancing the field. And it's all about getting paper accepted, so I can get a high h-index, so I can get a high paying job or a job in academia. But I believe the real impact of scientific research is in its footprint on the next generation, and I sincerely doubt any of these papers (using fun branding and focusing on the wrong things), will have an impact then. I hope I am proven wrong.
Fomite 1y ago
"In the old days, people did research for the sake of research, and mostly out of Europe came the greatest scientific works we have seen." In the old days, scientific careers were largely restricted to the independently wealthy or those who could secure patrons. I also feel like there's a sort of tension with what Hacker News broadly wants out of science. There's often a lament that there aren't enough staff science positions, or positions where people can have a career beyond a postdoc that's just devoted to research. Those things have to be paid for. Postdocs are expensive. Staff scientists are expensive - and terrifying, because they have careers and kids and mortgages. Postdocs are expensive. That ends up eating a lot of a PIs time, because the success rate on proposals are low. Even worse now. Would I love to be able to just sit in my office, think my thoughts, and occasionally write those thoughts up? Sure. But I'd also like to give people an opportunity to have careers in science where they can get paid.
- IronyMan100 1y ago
  The Idea of a staff Scientist is to Help with writing proposals, teaching and doing Research. It's also the only way of conserving the tacit knowledge of the Research group. Your PhD Student and Postdocs are gone after 3-6 years, and often enough the knowledge generated in this time is leaving with them. You are Not sitting around and writing Up your thoughts.
  - Fomite 1y ago
    Staff Scientists don't help with teaching, essentially by definition, unless we dilute teaching to the very broad level of "helping students with things". They are certainly helpful for research, and in my experience only somewhat useful for writing proposals - certainly not to the point that they'd be self-funding (rare is the staff scientist who is good at writing proposals, wants to, yet does not want to be a PI). None of that gets to the actual point of my comment, which is that it's all well and good to say people should do science for science's sake, but in the meantime, rent is due.

geokon 1y ago

I think a more charitable reading is that these are just basic suggestions about how to make one's writing clear and get your point across. It's hard to step back and look at what you write from the perspective of someone not familiar with the subject matter (ie. the reviewer). Sure it's framed in terms of "helping you get published" (which feels kind of gross) but I think ultimately it's really about tips for authors to get their points across in a clear and engaging way.

jszymborski 1y ago

I mean, at some point science is communication. Great for Einstein if he gets general relativity, but if he wants anyone else to care, he needs to communicate not only the complex idea in a clear manner, but also _why_ I should spend my cherished minutes here on earth trying to wrap my small brain around it. It's the difference between being a Cassandra or the Oracle at Delphi. Maybe the only difference between the two was presentation? (Classicists, feel free to roast my metaphor).

abetusk 1y ago
The argument is about pursuing research for discovery or pursuing research for career advancement. Both scenarios require communication but for different reasons. You're not really addressing main critique.
- jszymborski 1y ago
  > I did my PhD in the US, and it is very unfortunate that "gaming" publications and focusing on "grants" is the meat of research. I interpreted GPs above statement as reacting to the strategies in the article for "gaming" publications and grants, but perhaps I misunderstood GPs comment.
  - MPSFounder 1y ago
    My argument is time vested into this is time away from discovery and research. Communication is certainly a valuable skills. But by most accounts, significant effort is spent on grants and to make publications appealing to employers (the author himself argues for fun branding in a scientific paper). Instead, I argue the focus should be on advancing the field. Of course, you can argue that conference papers with fun branding and a neural network improvement in one benchmark (where selection bias makes the model look robust), is advancing the field. And it's all about getting paper accepted, so I can get a high h-index, so I can get a high paying job or a job in academia. But I believe the real impact of scientific research is in its footprint on the next generation, and I sincerely doubt any of these papers (using fun branding and focusing on the wrong things), will have an impact then. I hope I am proven wrong.

Fomite 1y ago

"In the old days, people did research for the sake of research, and mostly out of Europe came the greatest scientific works we have seen." In the old days, scientific careers were largely restricted to the independently wealthy or those who could secure patrons. I also feel like there's a sort of tension with what Hacker News broadly wants out of science. There's often a lament that there aren't enough staff science positions, or positions where people can have a career beyond a postdoc that's just devoted to research. Those things have to be paid for. Postdocs are expensive. Staff scientists are expensive - and terrifying, because they have careers and kids and mortgages. Postdocs are expensive. That ends up eating a lot of a PIs time, because the success rate on proposals are low. Even worse now. Would I love to be able to just sit in my office, think my thoughts, and occasionally write those thoughts up? Sure. But I'd also like to give people an opportunity to have careers in science where they can get paid.

IronyMan100 1y ago
The Idea of a staff Scientist is to Help with writing proposals, teaching and doing Research. It's also the only way of conserving the tacit knowledge of the Research group. Your PhD Student and Postdocs are gone after 3-6 years, and often enough the knowledge generated in this time is leaving with them. You are Not sitting around and writing Up your thoughts.
- Fomite 1y ago
  Staff Scientists don't help with teaching, essentially by definition, unless we dilute teaching to the very broad level of "helping students with things". They are certainly helpful for research, and in my experience only somewhat useful for writing proposals - certainly not to the point that they'd be self-funding (rare is the staff scientist who is good at writing proposals, wants to, yet does not want to be a PI). None of that gets to the actual point of my comment, which is that it's all well and good to say people should do science for science's sake, but in the meantime, rent is due.