5 ms·

Prestige? Prestige? Science is not about prestige. It's about science. If you want prestige, go become a jockey, or the world's best hooker. Too many "scientis

by madaxe 13y ago

Prestige? Prestige? Science is not about prestige. It's about science. If you want prestige, go become a jockey, or the world's best hooker. Too many "scientists" are in it for the holidays, money, and "prestige", rather than the, y'know, SCIENCE. I'm afraid it's not "understandable", it's nasty, selfish, and contrary to scientific advancement. By not releasing data, they're preventing the internet hivemind from doing its thing - and it has managed some pretty impressive things (NEAR target spotting, anyone?).

nolok 13y ago
I agree with your message in idea but sadly in the world we live in; without prestige you don't get founding.
tlarkworthy 13y ago
well we don't get paid jack. 99.9 % of the science undertook is boring, inconclusive or negative results. The only carrot is prestige, and the only perks are holidays ... I dunno why you suggested money because there is none (in wages). I expect a big reason for not releasing the data is ... who is gonna do the necessary steps to release the data? You want to take a scientist off his role to build a website and database?? We have little administrative support (probably JPL has better, but still, yet another distraction that eats time from our main job that pays too little). The people that make websites for a living get paid better the scientists, so its a bit harsh to expect scientists to constantly be building website to share data whilst paying them under the industry norms.
- danesparza 13y ago
  In his article, the OP mentions "$2.5 billion taxpayer dollars that made it possible". Sorry you don't get paid as much as you'd like -- that doesn't give you the moral high ground. Doing it for "prestige" still isn't a good reason. At a cost of 2.5 billion, I don't think it's too harsh to expect a small budget for releasing the data publicly.
  - barry-cotter 13y ago
    I sympathise with your goals but you're being a douche. Science is a crap career if you're chasing money. You're a smart college graduate with excellent grades who spends 4-7 years doing an apprenticeship for piss poor money, then a postdoc, for three years, maybe a second postdoc, and if you're lucky you then get a tenure track position. Now you have seven years of earning high school teacher money but working 60-80 hours a week and at the end of it there's an excellent chance you'll be fired. People do science for love or glory, not money. (Except people from 2nd or 3rd world countries studying or postdocing in industrial nations. For them it's a sweet deal.)
    - pm90 13y ago
      (Except people from 2nd or 3rd world countries studying or postdocing in industrial nations. For them it's a sweet deal.) Reminded me of this article:http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/scientist.html http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/scientist.html
- mturmon 13y ago
  "I expect a big reason for not releasing the data is..." No, no, no. The data are released. The mission pays people to properly calibrate, process, and format the data. NASA then pays to host the data indefinitely. The basic link for planetary data is http://pds.jpl.nasa.gov http://pds.jpl.nasa.gov . There are other sites for Earth, solar, astrophysical, etc., data. Source: I know the people who run PDS. The kerfuffle in the thread is about derived papers, in some cases by non-US collaborators, not the data itself. To the extent it is about data, it's about the post-capture embargo period of a couple of months (in the case of initial Mars data).
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
masklinn 13y ago
> Too many "scientists" are in it for the holidays, money Yeah no. Prestige within the profession yes, these two you probably get more of (and less politics and having to fight for grants) piloting garbage trucks. And talking about grants, that's a big part of what "prestige" is about. There is also an ego-stroking component but the scrap-fighting of obtaining grants (and keeping them) requires publication and forces many into "prestige-seeking" not because they want to do it but because without it they get no grants and without grants they get to do no science. > I'm afraid it's not "understandable", it's nasty, selfish, and contrary to scientific advancement. Fix science funding and 90% of the "prestige" issues will be fixed.
VMG 13y ago
I think the answer to this question is better left to those doing the actual science.
Stwerp 13y ago
I agree with your sentiment, but sadly science (or rather, the doing of science) is about prestige. Put yourself in the shoes of a funding agency. If you have two grant proposals, one from somebody at an institution in the middle of the country you haven't heard of, or someone with a strong publication record in big-name journals --- who are you going to award the money to? A scientist in academia needs funding and publications for tenure. To get publications, funding is needed for equipment, postocs, etc. To get funding, a list of publications is needed so that people recognize your track-record. It keeps on spiraling. To paraphrase from Pratchett in Carpe Jugulum: "Human families raise their successors, but a [s/vampire/professor] is raising competitors." There's a limited funding pool that the researchers are fighting for. It doesn't seem much better in the industry side of things. For instance, Google [X] is an extremely prominent research lab. However, why? They work on ??? something that no one really knows about for years and don't publish anything. The scientists there may come out in 5 years with something really cool, but if it doesn't pan out, the Google machine will eat it up and the public won't see. Science there is more about the company's prestige than science.
- sycren 13y ago
  Perhaps prestige needs to be replaced with something else like commercial value. Whilst this will not work for all topics, perhaps it could be one variable in a group of others that should be taken into account.
  - pm90 13y ago
    Many scientists hate the commercial part of their research. In fact that's sometimes the main reason why some of them choose to stay in (relatively) poorly paid academic positions
  - czr80 13y ago
    Well, prestige is used as currency precisely because we as a society need a mechanism to generate knowledge that isn't (immediately) commercializable. I, for one, would find it tragic if we lost that.
lutorm 13y ago
The problem is that if you aren't guaranteed some payoff (in terms of publications that will make it possible for you to get more grants and continue your work) from your work developing the experiments and getting the data, what's the incentive? It's not about being greedy (though there are certainly examples of that) but about encouraging good science. And I don't think people are worried about the internet hive mind, they are worried about their competitors who did not get the grant to actually collect the data.
ggchappell 13y ago
That's prestige as in your boss says, "Okay, you published in a prestigious journal, which means you must be doing very good work -- which I can't judge easily -- so we're not going to fire you." Prestige is how scientists can be evaluated by people who are not part of the same very narrow speciality. Scientists who don't get prestige don't get to be scientists very long.
greeneggs 13y ago
I don't understand your argument at all---scientists are in it for the money? Really, what money is that? But what I find really interesting from your post is the sense that scientists are supposed to be saints. You don't say this explicitly, but I get that sense from you implying that it is somehow bad for a scientist to be selfish or to want to be paid. (Or to want to be a scientist at all, since if you can't get funding then you can't work anywhere.) Are scientists all supposed to be volunteers? Myself, I have no problem with professional scientists who selfishly want to get paid for their work. In most areas of science, the internet hivemind has had zero impact. Scientific advancement would stop dead if we stopped paying scientists.
- chii 13y ago
  > no problem with professional scientists who selfishly want to get paid for their work. nor do i, but if their only method of getting paid is to restrict others from using raw data till they've made their break through "discovery", then they are not worth what they are paid!
kazagistar 13y ago
Scientists with "prestige" get positions at nice universities, labs, raises, smart people who want to talk to them, smart PhD students who want to work with them, etc. Scientists without "prestige" end up being poorly paid, teaching intro to chemistry at a community college to students who just want a piece of paper to help them find a job, and unable to get the funding to even buy a laptop, let alone a lab. So prestige matters a lot to scientists, whether they like it or not. The only way you have a chance at solving this system is by changing the reward metrics; find a way to make it more rewarding to release the data then to keep it for yourself. But if you just mandate the data be released, then the scientists will be actively discouraged from collecting data, and probably move away from the field.

by madaxe 13y ago

nolok 13y ago

I agree with your message in idea but sadly in the world we live in; without prestige you don't get founding.

tlarkworthy 13y ago

well we don't get paid jack. 99.9 % of the science undertook is boring, inconclusive or negative results. The only carrot is prestige, and the only perks are holidays ... I dunno why you suggested money because there is none (in wages). I expect a big reason for not releasing the data is ... who is gonna do the necessary steps to release the data? You want to take a scientist off his role to build a website and database?? We have little administrative support (probably JPL has better, but still, yet another distraction that eats time from our main job that pays too little). The people that make websites for a living get paid better the scientists, so its a bit harsh to expect scientists to constantly be building website to share data whilst paying them under the industry norms.

danesparza 13y ago
In his article, the OP mentions "$2.5 billion taxpayer dollars that made it possible". Sorry you don't get paid as much as you'd like -- that doesn't give you the moral high ground. Doing it for "prestige" still isn't a good reason. At a cost of 2.5 billion, I don't think it's too harsh to expect a small budget for releasing the data publicly.
- barry-cotter 13y ago
  I sympathise with your goals but you're being a douche. Science is a crap career if you're chasing money. You're a smart college graduate with excellent grades who spends 4-7 years doing an apprenticeship for piss poor money, then a postdoc, for three years, maybe a second postdoc, and if you're lucky you then get a tenure track position. Now you have seven years of earning high school teacher money but working 60-80 hours a week and at the end of it there's an excellent chance you'll be fired. People do science for love or glory, not money. (Except people from 2nd or 3rd world countries studying or postdocing in industrial nations. For them it's a sweet deal.)
  - pm90 13y ago
    (Except people from 2nd or 3rd world countries studying or postdocing in industrial nations. For them it's a sweet deal.) Reminded me of this article:http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/scientist.html http://wuphys.wustl.edu/~katz/scientist.html
mturmon 13y ago
"I expect a big reason for not releasing the data is..." No, no, no. The data are released. The mission pays people to properly calibrate, process, and format the data. NASA then pays to host the data indefinitely. The basic link for planetary data is http://pds.jpl.nasa.gov http://pds.jpl.nasa.gov . There are other sites for Earth, solar, astrophysical, etc., data. Source: I know the people who run PDS. The kerfuffle in the thread is about derived papers, in some cases by non-US collaborators, not the data itself. To the extent it is about data, it's about the post-capture embargo period of a couple of months (in the case of initial Mars data).

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

masklinn 13y ago

> Too many "scientists" are in it for the holidays, money Yeah no. Prestige within the profession yes, these two you probably get more of (and less politics and having to fight for grants) piloting garbage trucks. And talking about grants, that's a big part of what "prestige" is about. There is also an ego-stroking component but the scrap-fighting of obtaining grants (and keeping them) requires publication and forces many into "prestige-seeking" not because they want to do it but because without it they get no grants and without grants they get to do no science. > I'm afraid it's not "understandable", it's nasty, selfish, and contrary to scientific advancement. Fix science funding and 90% of the "prestige" issues will be fixed.

VMG 13y ago

I think the answer to this question is better left to those doing the actual science.

Stwerp 13y ago

I agree with your sentiment, but sadly science (or rather, the doing of science) is about prestige. Put yourself in the shoes of a funding agency. If you have two grant proposals, one from somebody at an institution in the middle of the country you haven't heard of, or someone with a strong publication record in big-name journals --- who are you going to award the money to? A scientist in academia needs funding and publications for tenure. To get publications, funding is needed for equipment, postocs, etc. To get funding, a list of publications is needed so that people recognize your track-record. It keeps on spiraling. To paraphrase from Pratchett in Carpe Jugulum: "Human families raise their successors, but a [s/vampire/professor] is raising competitors." There's a limited funding pool that the researchers are fighting for. It doesn't seem much better in the industry side of things. For instance, Google [X] is an extremely prominent research lab. However, why? They work on ??? something that no one really knows about for years and don't publish anything. The scientists there may come out in 5 years with something really cool, but if it doesn't pan out, the Google machine will eat it up and the public won't see. Science there is more about the company's prestige than science.

sycren 13y ago
Perhaps prestige needs to be replaced with something else like commercial value. Whilst this will not work for all topics, perhaps it could be one variable in a group of others that should be taken into account.
- pm90 13y ago
  Many scientists hate the commercial part of their research. In fact that's sometimes the main reason why some of them choose to stay in (relatively) poorly paid academic positions
- czr80 13y ago
  Well, prestige is used as currency precisely because we as a society need a mechanism to generate knowledge that isn't (immediately) commercializable. I, for one, would find it tragic if we lost that.

lutorm 13y ago

The problem is that if you aren't guaranteed some payoff (in terms of publications that will make it possible for you to get more grants and continue your work) from your work developing the experiments and getting the data, what's the incentive? It's not about being greedy (though there are certainly examples of that) but about encouraging good science. And I don't think people are worried about the internet hive mind, they are worried about their competitors who did not get the grant to actually collect the data.

ggchappell 13y ago

That's prestige as in your boss says, "Okay, you published in a prestigious journal, which means you must be doing very good work -- which I can't judge easily -- so we're not going to fire you." Prestige is how scientists can be evaluated by people who are not part of the same very narrow speciality. Scientists who don't get prestige don't get to be scientists very long.

greeneggs 13y ago

I don't understand your argument at all---scientists are in it for the money? Really, what money is that? But what I find really interesting from your post is the sense that scientists are supposed to be saints. You don't say this explicitly, but I get that sense from you implying that it is somehow bad for a scientist to be selfish or to want to be paid. (Or to want to be a scientist at all, since if you can't get funding then you can't work anywhere.) Are scientists all supposed to be volunteers? Myself, I have no problem with professional scientists who selfishly want to get paid for their work. In most areas of science, the internet hivemind has had zero impact. Scientific advancement would stop dead if we stopped paying scientists.

chii 13y ago
> no problem with professional scientists who selfishly want to get paid for their work. nor do i, but if their only method of getting paid is to restrict others from using raw data till they've made their break through "discovery", then they are not worth what they are paid!

kazagistar 13y ago

Scientists with "prestige" get positions at nice universities, labs, raises, smart people who want to talk to them, smart PhD students who want to work with them, etc. Scientists without "prestige" end up being poorly paid, teaching intro to chemistry at a community college to students who just want a piece of paper to help them find a job, and unable to get the funding to even buy a laptop, let alone a lab. So prestige matters a lot to scientists, whether they like it or not. The only way you have a chance at solving this system is by changing the reward metrics; find a way to make it more rewarding to release the data then to keep it for yourself. But if you just mandate the data be released, then the scientists will be actively discouraged from collecting data, and probably move away from the field.