Bias Against Novelty in Science
nber.org
Bias Against Novelty in Science
1–10 of 46 posts
Re: Bias Against Novelty in Science
#2Yep. Professor in molecular biology here. Been at numerous universities you know. I can confirm very unscientific groupthink as the main driver of science progress nowadays. Being a lone wolf, rogue isn't really a viable option given the funding climate. Perfect sheep extends all the way from college to the professor level. Think this would surprise most lay people given the conception of scientists as off in their own world.
Re: Bias Against Novelty in Science
#3My preconceptions here are the reverse - that mundane studies seeking to replicate existing studies to confirm their findings are boring, and as such are not pursued or funded, despite their importance. I understand that 'novel' is being used in a slightly different context here, though.
Re: Bias Against Novelty in Science
#4My preconceptions here are the reverse - that mundane studies seeking to replicate existing studies to confirm their findings are boring, and as such are not pursued or funded, despite their importance. I understand that 'novel' is being used in a slightly different context here, though.
In biological sciences it's a well known secret that most of what you write your grants on is for work that you've already done. This is not about being "boring" vs interesting. It's pragmatism to survive and get funding.
Re: Bias Against Novelty in Science
#5Obligatory mention of Rupert Sheldrake: http://www.sheldrake.org/books-by-rupert-sheldrake/the-scien...
Re: Bias Against Novelty in Science
#6Yep. Professor in molecular biology here. Been at numerous universities you know. I can confirm very unscientific groupthink as the main driver of science progress nowadays. Being a lone wolf, rogue isn't really a viable option given the funding climate. Perfect sheep extends all the way from college to the professor level. Think this would surprise most lay people given the conception of scientists as off in their o…
You can be rogue if you've been a famous professor for decades, by which point your ideas are stultified or just state funded intellectual masturbations... you might get lucky like k Barry sharpless and stumble on an old idea that works really well and was forgotten.
Re: Bias Against Novelty in Science
#7My preconceptions here are the reverse - that mundane studies seeking to replicate existing studies to confirm their findings are boring, and as such are not pursued or funded, despite their importance. I understand that 'novel' is being used in a slightly different context here, though.
In biological sciences it's a well known secret that most of what you write your grants on is for work that you've already done. This is not about being "boring" vs interesting. It's pragmatism to survive and get funding.
Is it not that way in other sciences? It's funny that I just assumed all sciences did the same thing. In fact, my wife works in a museum, and I was stunned to find out that they write grants for work that isn't even started yet.
Re: Bias Against Novelty in Science
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
In biological sciences it's a well known secret that most of what you write your grants on is for work that you've already done. This is not about being "boring" vs interesting. It's pragmatism to survive and get funding.
Is it not that way in other sciences? It's funny that I just assumed all sciences did the same thing. In fact, my wife works in a museum, and I was stunned to find out that they write grants for work that isn't even started yet.
> Is it not that way in other sciences?
I can speak to the fact that this is absolutely the case in the physical sciences.
Re: Bias Against Novelty in Science
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
In biological sciences it's a well known secret that most of what you write your grants on is for work that you've already done. This is not about being "boring" vs interesting. It's pragmatism to survive and get funding.
Is it not that way in other sciences? It's funny that I just assumed all sciences did the same thing. In fact, my wife works in a museum, and I was stunned to find out that they write grants for work that isn't even started yet.
CS is somewhere in the middle of those two extremes. You write grants for things you haven't done yet but also you typically have some initial work (maybe a minor publication, maybe not) to prove the direction is promising enough to fund.
Re: Bias Against Novelty in Science
#10Is this bias, or does it just take time for other researchers to go into areas opened up by novel papers and then publish other papers that cite those novel papers?