3 ms·

Contributing to humanity’s knowledge is MUCH easier in the private sector than in academia. In the private sector you can choose your patrons and your dissemin

by ke88y 1y ago

Contributing to humanity’s knowledge is MUCH easier in the private sector than in academia. In the private sector you can choose your patrons and your dissemination mechanism. Many, many scientists publish papers, publish code, give talks, write blogs, and otherwise distribute technical details about their work product. In academia the Federal Government is your only serious patron and you must disseminate in academic journals/conferences, which generally do a piss poor job of providing incentives for either doing good work or communicating well about that work. Any time I hire a junior PhD I have to UNDO a ton of academic writing/provlem-solving propaganda and reteach both common sense and normal writing style. The harsh truth is that private sector scientists tend to do better science and disseminate it in more useful and lasting ways. They are paid better for it. The academic scientists who are up to private sector standards tend to have diverse funding mechanisms and therefore rely far less heavily on prestige publication for their labs revenue stream. But most professors must publish papers because they are unable to do good work and/or communicate the value of that work to anyone other than their inner circle of friends (who sit on the grant review panels or take stints at federal agencies).

mitthrowaway2 1y ago
Every private-sector company I've worked for has had me sign an NDA saying that I can only disseminate knowledge within that company.
- rcxdude 1y ago
  Without permission, yeah. But many companies do publish scientific papers. In both worlds, there's usually a game of publishing enough to give people confidence that the results are good, without actually giving away enough details to actually lose any competitive advantage (this is perhaps even more so in academia). In basically every field there will be things that everyone talks about and things that no-one talks about, and the latter is often even more important (but usually more boring know-how type things).
  - ke88y 1y ago
    Also, to state the ultra-obvious given our venue: you can find patrons outside of mega companies that require NDAs.
    - mitthrowaway2 1y ago
      NDAs are standard even in small businesses. Any company developing technology will require them for technical staff because not doing so can cause the company to lose protection for its IP, even if none of the staff actually leak any technical secrets. Patent applications can be invalidated on the ground that the technology had been disclosed to individuals outside of an NDA, and trade secret protections forfeited for not taking reasonable precautions. I have only worked with one business that did not require NDAs, and that was because it was built around an open-source sharing philosophy. Every other client, even very small organic-growth businesses and pre-seed startups, required an NDA, and if they hadn't I would have advised them that they should.
GJim 1y ago
> In academia the Federal Government is your only serious patron Are you are aware there is a world outside the USA?
- ke88y 1y ago
  Sorry, you’re totally correct! It’s important to point out that US professors are sometimes able to go without public patronage, but that this is very much an anomaly. The US private sector funds A LOT of R&D relative to other countries, and the US attracts an outsized amount of FDI targeted at R&D. As a result, in the USA there are occasionally rare instances where professors can mostly fund labs without government patronage. Scientists in other counties are even more desperate for public patronage (and its associated political games) than US scientists
  - jltsiren 1y ago
    I think it's actually the opposite. American universities receive less research funding from external private sources than universities in the European countries I'm familiar with. The difference is probably due to the culture of charitable donations. Europe has a tradition of private foundations funding arts and sciences, while Americans make donations to universities. In 2021, academic R&D spending in the US was ~$90 billion (https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb202326/funding-sources-of-academic-r-d https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb202326/funding-sources-of-acad...). Out of that, 55% came from the federal government, 25% from the institutions themselves, 6% from nonprofits, 6% from businesses, 5% from state and local governments, and 3% from other sources. The share of businesses looks normal, while the share of nonprofits seems low.
    - ke88y 1y ago
      You’re making a comparison then quoting only one side of that comparison, which is deeply confusing. I’m pretty damn sure you’re wrong about Europe on a relative basis. The percentages in most of Europe are MUCH higher. Eg Germany is closer to 80% than 50% gov funded. (Earmarked gifts to an endowment with some level of direction/advice vs a foundation is a real cultural and tax policy difference, but the end effect is what matters and that’s not as simple as you’re suggesting.) And not to be too flippant, but the question about the world outside of America applies also to the world outside the West ;)
ModernMech 1y ago
And yet, show me any private sector funded research and most of the citations will be academic research funded by public dollars.
- ke88y 1y ago
  Only when they are disseminating in an academic venue. Most non-university research dissemination happens outside of academic venues. And even then usually only because it’s expected, not because it was actually useful. (And no, it’s not because academics are more ethical about acknowledging the shoulders they stand on. Academics rarely cite the chip designs, software libraries, lab instruments, instruction documents, training materials, etc. What “counts” as something that deserves a citation mostly boils down to “did you publish it in a venue controlled by other academics”, not “how important was this to enabling your contributions?”) The fortunate thing about the private sector is that you don’t have to spend years of your life shaping opinion on citation ethics, because people are using your stuff instead of half-interestedly saying that they may’ve skimmed the intro to a pdf describing your stuff. And if people use your stuff and get value from it you can usually extract some of the value that creates. Which means you don’t need vanity metrics to convince some government agency to throw you some coin.
  - ModernMech 1y ago
    I don't find this true at all in my experience, you and I apparently have very different perspectives when it comes to the research we consume. The things which you say are not cited absolutely should be, and if they are not that's a problem. In the papers I read, I'm often encountering citations to specific versions of libraries, specific industry created operating systems, industry created programming languages of which there are many, specific commercial lab equipment which were used. My friend in grad school used to do research on x86 machine instructions and he had a giant instruction manual on his desk at all times, which was cited thoroughly in his work. This is all part of doing good research. Either way my point stands. Since they are citing the research as foundational in their papers, then we should take them at their word. The idea you put forth that they're only doing so as a matter of show puts a terrible light on them if true. They shouldn't be citing research as foundational if it really isn't. So I will choose not to believe your characterization, because I think very highly of the industry researchers I know, and that doesn't seem like something they would do.

by ke88y 1y ago

mitthrowaway2 1y ago

Every private-sector company I've worked for has had me sign an NDA saying that I can only disseminate knowledge within that company.

rcxdude 1y ago
Without permission, yeah. But many companies do publish scientific papers. In both worlds, there's usually a game of publishing enough to give people confidence that the results are good, without actually giving away enough details to actually lose any competitive advantage (this is perhaps even more so in academia). In basically every field there will be things that everyone talks about and things that no-one talks about, and the latter is often even more important (but usually more boring know-how type things).
- ke88y 1y ago
  Also, to state the ultra-obvious given our venue: you can find patrons outside of mega companies that require NDAs.
  - mitthrowaway2 1y ago
    NDAs are standard even in small businesses. Any company developing technology will require them for technical staff because not doing so can cause the company to lose protection for its IP, even if none of the staff actually leak any technical secrets. Patent applications can be invalidated on the ground that the technology had been disclosed to individuals outside of an NDA, and trade secret protections forfeited for not taking reasonable precautions. I have only worked with one business that did not require NDAs, and that was because it was built around an open-source sharing philosophy. Every other client, even very small organic-growth businesses and pre-seed startups, required an NDA, and if they hadn't I would have advised them that they should.

GJim 1y ago

> In academia the Federal Government is your only serious patron Are you are aware there is a world outside the USA?

ke88y 1y ago
Sorry, you’re totally correct! It’s important to point out that US professors are sometimes able to go without public patronage, but that this is very much an anomaly. The US private sector funds A LOT of R&D relative to other countries, and the US attracts an outsized amount of FDI targeted at R&D. As a result, in the USA there are occasionally rare instances where professors can mostly fund labs without government patronage. Scientists in other counties are even more desperate for public patronage (and its associated political games) than US scientists
- jltsiren 1y ago
  I think it's actually the opposite. American universities receive less research funding from external private sources than universities in the European countries I'm familiar with. The difference is probably due to the culture of charitable donations. Europe has a tradition of private foundations funding arts and sciences, while Americans make donations to universities. In 2021, academic R&D spending in the US was ~$90 billion (https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb202326/funding-sources-of-academic-r-d https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb202326/funding-sources-of-acad...). Out of that, 55% came from the federal government, 25% from the institutions themselves, 6% from nonprofits, 6% from businesses, 5% from state and local governments, and 3% from other sources. The share of businesses looks normal, while the share of nonprofits seems low.
  - ke88y 1y ago
    You’re making a comparison then quoting only one side of that comparison, which is deeply confusing. I’m pretty damn sure you’re wrong about Europe on a relative basis. The percentages in most of Europe are MUCH higher. Eg Germany is closer to 80% than 50% gov funded. (Earmarked gifts to an endowment with some level of direction/advice vs a foundation is a real cultural and tax policy difference, but the end effect is what matters and that’s not as simple as you’re suggesting.) And not to be too flippant, but the question about the world outside of America applies also to the world outside the West ;)

ModernMech 1y ago

And yet, show me any private sector funded research and most of the citations will be academic research funded by public dollars.

ke88y 1y ago
Only when they are disseminating in an academic venue. Most non-university research dissemination happens outside of academic venues. And even then usually only because it’s expected, not because it was actually useful. (And no, it’s not because academics are more ethical about acknowledging the shoulders they stand on. Academics rarely cite the chip designs, software libraries, lab instruments, instruction documents, training materials, etc. What “counts” as something that deserves a citation mostly boils down to “did you publish it in a venue controlled by other academics”, not “how important was this to enabling your contributions?”) The fortunate thing about the private sector is that you don’t have to spend years of your life shaping opinion on citation ethics, because people are using your stuff instead of half-interestedly saying that they may’ve skimmed the intro to a pdf describing your stuff. And if people use your stuff and get value from it you can usually extract some of the value that creates. Which means you don’t need vanity metrics to convince some government agency to throw you some coin.
- ModernMech 1y ago
  I don't find this true at all in my experience, you and I apparently have very different perspectives when it comes to the research we consume. The things which you say are not cited absolutely should be, and if they are not that's a problem. In the papers I read, I'm often encountering citations to specific versions of libraries, specific industry created operating systems, industry created programming languages of which there are many, specific commercial lab equipment which were used. My friend in grad school used to do research on x86 machine instructions and he had a giant instruction manual on his desk at all times, which was cited thoroughly in his work. This is all part of doing good research. Either way my point stands. Since they are citing the research as foundational in their papers, then we should take them at their word. The idea you put forth that they're only doing so as a matter of show puts a terrible light on them if true. They shouldn't be citing research as foundational if it really isn't. So I will choose not to believe your characterization, because I think very highly of the industry researchers I know, and that doesn't seem like something they would do.