3 ms·

I know I probably invited inflammatory responses by suggesting that the best PhD students are able to stay in academia, which I admit is an overgeneralization.

by et2o 11y ago

I know I probably invited inflammatory responses by suggesting that the best PhD students are able to stay in academia, which I admit is an overgeneralization. From what I see (and this is getting more personal than I'd like to from a response to my lighthearted comment) you left academia to work at a pharmaceutical (non-profit) company you started. I may have gotten that wrong. If so I apologize. I do think it's a bit beside the point to be arguing about this instead of the ideas, but so be it. Peter Mitchell was exceptional, as was every other Nobel Prize Winner, the vast majority (the rest?) who were academics. If you're arguing that moving to a model where individual scientists soliciting charity for their research is better, I would have to disagree. You think the general public is better able to assess research value than the NIH?

dnautics 11y ago
It is not just an overgeneralization, it is basically a dangerous defense of the status quo, that doesn't match up with reality. The problem is largely that science has become a kleptocratic system where there's even a term 'grantsmanship' that everyone knows involves a level of dishonesty and overselling. If you'd like for your scientific leaders to be polluted, at a fundamental level, with this toxic attitude, then perhaps you deserve the scientific system we have now. On a personal level, I find it to also be a very distressing appeal to authority - "well these people are professors because clearly they deserve to be"... I mean, I have worked under/with professors who definitely deserve it (Ham Smith, Clyde Hutchison, Dan Gibson, Vanessa Hayes, Jeff Kelly, my boss at the University of Maryland - who does incidentally now work for the NIH, but is planning on quitting) but there is a very, very long list of professors who do not... I'm not really going to name too many names for obvious reasons.
- jcfrei 11y ago
  The fact that [t]here is no way to hold a scientist accountable when the fruits of 'basic science' are not provable for decades or centuries is an inherent problem with science. I can't think of an alternative system which would resolve this. If there was no uncertainty with regards to the profits resulting from research, then it wouldn't be science anymore - it would simply be consulting. And I honestly can't imagine how you can prevent dishonesty and overselling when laymen are involved in funding decisions through donations. Edit: I've just read the comment by eli_gottlieb further below and would argue that's a far better improvement for science rather than abandoning the NIH.
  - dnautics 11y ago
    Exactly, you have hit on my point. You can't prevent dishonesty and overselling period. When a person gives out of their own pocket to an outlandish and unlikely project, that is on them. When the government gives out to an outlandish and unlikely project, the donors had no choice. In that way, government is dangerous, and therefore must be held to a higher standard of accountability. A charity or private nonprofit, if it screws up, it will find itself in a more difficult position with regard to seeking further resources for its work.

by et2o 11y ago

dnautics 11y ago

It is not just an overgeneralization, it is basically a dangerous defense of the status quo, that doesn't match up with reality. The problem is largely that science has become a kleptocratic system where there's even a term 'grantsmanship' that everyone knows involves a level of dishonesty and overselling. If you'd like for your scientific leaders to be polluted, at a fundamental level, with this toxic attitude, then perhaps you deserve the scientific system we have now. On a personal level, I find it to also be a very distressing appeal to authority - "well these people are professors because clearly they deserve to be"... I mean, I have worked under/with professors who definitely deserve it (Ham Smith, Clyde Hutchison, Dan Gibson, Vanessa Hayes, Jeff Kelly, my boss at the University of Maryland - who does incidentally now work for the NIH, but is planning on quitting) but there is a very, very long list of professors who do not... I'm not really going to name too many names for obvious reasons.

jcfrei 11y ago
The fact that [t]here is no way to hold a scientist accountable when the fruits of 'basic science' are not provable for decades or centuries is an inherent problem with science. I can't think of an alternative system which would resolve this. If there was no uncertainty with regards to the profits resulting from research, then it wouldn't be science anymore - it would simply be consulting. And I honestly can't imagine how you can prevent dishonesty and overselling when laymen are involved in funding decisions through donations. Edit: I've just read the comment by eli_gottlieb further below and would argue that's a far better improvement for science rather than abandoning the NIH.
- dnautics 11y ago
  Exactly, you have hit on my point. You can't prevent dishonesty and overselling period. When a person gives out of their own pocket to an outlandish and unlikely project, that is on them. When the government gives out to an outlandish and unlikely project, the donors had no choice. In that way, government is dangerous, and therefore must be held to a higher standard of accountability. A charity or private nonprofit, if it screws up, it will find itself in a more difficult position with regard to seeking further resources for its work.