Our brutal science system almost cost us a pioneer of mRNA vaccines
1–10 of 293 posts
Re: Our brutal science system almost cost us a pioneer of mRNA vaccines
#2I think it is a fair question how to organize science for best results (maximum productivity ?). I am no fan of pressure to apply for grants, which is particularly strong in the US. Also the amount of pressure/effort needed to get permanent/tenured position is very large. While this is clearly a big drain on people, and some people cannot handle it, either because they don't play the game well, or just live/work balance, or politics, but I think it certainly forces people to work more/harder. If we make things more relaxed, I'm sure that will make life easier for many scientists, but I would think the overall productivity will go down. I don't honestly know whether that's right path or not.
Re: Our brutal science system almost cost us a pioneer of mRNA vaccines
#3Well, it's no surprise that people optimize to the metric that's available, right? Private labs aim to make production things. Public labs aim to collect grants.
The only real hope for modern science is a business with a long-term view. That's because that business is only rewarded if their thing works.
If there was ever a time when public academics worked for science, it is no longer that today. Now it is occupied by grant vultures. This makes sense since we never rewarded science. We always rewarded a proxy. And in any sphere where you do that, eventually the proxy becomes the target as more sophisticated strategies evolve and each generation of participants gets better at optimizing against the proxy.
Re: Our brutal science system almost cost us a pioneer of mRNA vaccines
#4I think it is a fair question how to organize science for best results (maximum productivity ?). I am no fan of pressure to apply for grants, which is particularly strong in the US. Also the amount of pressure/effort needed to get permanent/tenured position is very large. While this is clearly a big drain on people, and some people cannot handle it, either because they don't play the game well, or just live/work bala…
The quest for "maximum productivity" is the root cause for all of this. We need more artists and academics and less capitalists. Short-sighted thinking with profits being the end goal doesn't make for good science, good engineering or long term growth. The quest for productivity is a highly flawed path.
Re: Our brutal science system almost cost us a pioneer of mRNA vaccines
#5I think it is a fair question how to organize science for best results (maximum productivity ?). I am no fan of pressure to apply for grants, which is particularly strong in the US. Also the amount of pressure/effort needed to get permanent/tenured position is very large. While this is clearly a big drain on people, and some people cannot handle it, either because they don't play the game well, or just live/work bala…
I think the biggest question here is to what extent can productivity in basic research be quantified. Or, what are the value to failed experiments and explorations of "out there" ideas? Basic research is tricky because it is at the periphery of human knowledge, so getting our bearings there is difficult. The focus should, you are right, be on "overall productivity" and not on individual productivity, but the question is how do we make decisions about individuals based on overall productivity goals.
Re: Our brutal science system almost cost us a pioneer of mRNA vaccines
#6I think it is a fair question how to organize science for best results (maximum productivity ?). I am no fan of pressure to apply for grants, which is particularly strong in the US. Also the amount of pressure/effort needed to get permanent/tenured position is very large. While this is clearly a big drain on people, and some people cannot handle it, either because they don't play the game well, or just live/work bala…
The quest for "maximum productivity" is the root cause for all of this. We need more artists and academics and less capitalists. Short-sighted thinking with profits being the end goal doesn't make for good science, good engineering or long term growth. The quest for productivity is a highly flawed path.
Productivity in this context is also defined by what makes the most wealthy and powerful more wealthy and powerful.
The old argument is that capitalism as is aligns with the people so when it benefits you benefit. As businesses optimize out those pesky alignment costs with society, this becomes less true.
Re: Our brutal science system almost cost us a pioneer of mRNA vaccines
#7Well, it's no surprise that people optimize to the metric that's available, right? Private labs aim to make production things. Public labs aim to collect grants. The only real hope for modern science is a business with a long-term view. That's because that business is only rewarded if their thing works. If there was ever a time when public academics worked for science, it is no longer that today. Now it is occupied b…
The follow on from this is rather more problematic. If you are prioritizing production things, then it means you'll severely limit the topics you explore. Anything that would take too long to get to market, or is too risky, or is too theoretical, will never be prioritized.
This is the reason for the tenure system, to give true freedom to explore novel and future oriented work. Things that won't pay off for decades, if ever. Ironically, the grant system does cut against it, especially with some grants now looking for more near term impact. Also, publish or perish cuts against this, because it optimizes for quantity rather than quality. Similar to industry labs, risky work or things that will take too long to get to publication are now discouraged. Instead we have a plethora of weak, simple, and short publications, often duplicating previous work due to a lack of consistency in terminology.
Re: Our brutal science system almost cost us a pioneer of mRNA vaccines
#8Here’s a prior article and HN thread on “Managing Academia” and it’s conclusion.
> If a job is complex, multifaceted and involves subtle trade-offs, the best approach is to hire good people, pay them the going rate and tell them to do the job to the best of their ability.
Re: Our brutal science system almost cost us a pioneer of mRNA vaccines
#9It's pretty easy to see who is a top star (because they have continuous highest-quality output), and who will never deliver anything worthwhile.
The trouble is the continuum between those two extremes. This domain is dominated by politics, endless grant applications, bureaucracy. Nobody can really tell where you belong in this continuum, maybe not even you yourself. And I also don't believe that academia is the best place to pursue your ideas anymore, anyway.
Re: Our brutal science system almost cost us a pioneer of mRNA vaccines
#10I think it is a fair question how to organize science for best results (maximum productivity ?). I am no fan of pressure to apply for grants, which is particularly strong in the US. Also the amount of pressure/effort needed to get permanent/tenured position is very large. While this is clearly a big drain on people, and some people cannot handle it, either because they don't play the game well, or just live/work bala…
Productivity is a metric and the moment you use for _whatever_ will be gamed. This is just the natural course of things. The main problem is that productivity, when it comes to research, is a lousy metric. Eventually productivity will be linked to "the market", because that's what matters right?
Would Riemann frame that hypothesis had he been driven by "productivity" ? I wonder.