Don't want to know what better discoveries than mRNA vaccines it DID actually cost us.
Our brutal science system almost cost us a pioneer of mRNA vaccines
91–100 of 293 posts
Re: Our brutal science system almost cost us a pioneer of mRNA vaccines
#92Wow, there is a lot of negativity towards science in this thread. Um, yeah, it could be better. But it's mostly a matter of personal courage. Of course institutional funding is not the best incentive for the best science. Good science comes from courageous individuals in courageous communities. Not financial incentives. Good science takes courage.
Haven't seen anybody here criticize science... rather, they're upset about the deviation from science that modern academia represents.
Re: Our brutal science system almost cost us a pioneer of mRNA vaccines
#93I am a casualty of this. I was originally intending to follow an academic career, until I discovered that my career would be dependent on my ability to secure grants. Something that if I was not bad at (which I think is unlikely), would at least be extremely stressful for me. It isn't the only reason I decided to to switch to being a software engineer, but it is a major reason.
Biomedical engineer with a 2.977GPA. Lots of extra curriculars, volunteered in labs, 160 credit hours of mostly STEM classes, lots of grad-level courses, relevant work experience, but GPA was 0.023 too low to pass the automated filters and I didn't get into any of the grad programs I applied for. I ended up doing fine in software development though. Also, the Wright Brothers didn't need a research lab to invent fligh…
> GPA was 0.023 too low to pass the automated filters
Your application was most likely reviewed by real people, not just automated filters. People with GPAs below 3 do get into competitive grad programs (and med school). An upward trend is the key.
Re: Our brutal science system almost cost us a pioneer of mRNA vaccines
#94Well, 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…
To reduce the focus of grant-funded labs on obtaining their next grant (i.e., ensuring their continued existence), funding organizations should deliberately force a soft cap on the number of research PIs. In the context of biomedical research, US universities have been on a hiring spree for the past 25 years. The number of BME departments increased 150% from 1995 to 2005. This expansion was partially funded by Whitaker Foundation money, which ended in 2006. Consequently, the NIH award rate for R01 grants, which are they main lab support mechanism, fell from 27% to ~ 15%. Naturally, funding a lab in a 15% award rate environment takes much more time (probably 3× more; it's nonlinear due to competition), to the detriment of time spent on research and training. This has a corrosive effect on every aspect of publicly-funded science.
The NIH has strong leverage to correct this. Grant awards include both "direct" and "indirect" costs. Direct costs go to the applicant (PI). Indirect costs go to their /institution/ (employer). Indirect costs are calculated relative to direct costs, generally 70% (so the total awarded sum is 170% of direct costs), but the rate is negotiated and institution-specific. The NIH could penalize institutions with too many soft money (grant-supported) positions by reducing those institutions' indirect cost rates, or even requiring institutional matching, until the number of grant-supported positions falls to a level at which they can place their main focus on doing the work they are nominally funded to do. This would reduce the number of publicly-funded scientists, but would let them act more like scientists and less like marketers.
Re: Our brutal science system almost cost us a pioneer of mRNA vaccines
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
Biomedical engineer with a 2.977GPA. Lots of extra curriculars, volunteered in labs, 160 credit hours of mostly STEM classes, lots of grad-level courses, relevant work experience, but GPA was 0.023 too low to pass the automated filters and I didn't get into any of the grad programs I applied for. I ended up doing fine in software development though. Also, the Wright Brothers didn't need a research lab to invent fligh…
> GPA was 0.023 too low to pass the automated filters Your application was most likely reviewed by real people, not just automated filters. People with GPAs below 3 do get into competitive grad programs (and med school). An upward trend is the key.
Maybe indeed. Maybe not. It‘s probably more nuanced and random than that.
Re: Our brutal science system almost cost us a pioneer of mRNA vaccines
#96Great article.
Re: Our brutal science system almost cost us a pioneer of mRNA vaccines
#97Is it counterproductive that we expect researchers to work in universities and become professors? It seems like there should be more outlets for the calling. Our universities are proving to be a bottleneck. I see how there is an often-natural relationship between cultivating knowledge and disseminating it to students. However, we need and have more prospective researchers than universities are willing or able to supp…
Part of the problem is that research positions tend to be for Ph.D. students and post-docs who cost less than permanent research scientists. This is good in the short term for the individual grant, but has the side effect that to continue research we have to produce more Ph.D.s than there are permanent fair-paying academic positions for.
Re: Our brutal science system almost cost us a pioneer of mRNA vaccines
#98I am a casualty of this. I was originally intending to follow an academic career, until I discovered that my career would be dependent on my ability to secure grants. Something that if I was not bad at (which I think is unlikely), would at least be extremely stressful for me. It isn't the only reason I decided to to switch to being a software engineer, but it is a major reason.
The grant system completely compromises most faculty'$ ability to do anything with their decades of training besides sell themselves. Especially young faculty during their most productive years. The only way to turn this around is to change the way we give credit for scientific achievements, and stop rewarding "I wrote the grant" With authorships. (Im ex faculty)
I wonder how much of the rise of modern "pop-sci" as a genre in writing, film, and tv is due to the current academic incentives. If you're so good at selling yourself and field why not take the pitch directly to a paying audience rather than grant committees?
Re: Our brutal science system almost cost us a pioneer of mRNA vaccines
#99I want to say something about how messed up this system is... I spent many years as a grad student in economics and especially engineering. Not sure what to say though, my trajectory was pretty non-standard. From where I sat, the academic path looked like a meat grinder, and Econ. and Eng. are easier to break into academia than, e.g. biology, I have no doubt.
Aside, I’ve found my fill of god awful meat grinders in industry before and since, but I have no doubt the “existential career threat by default, high probability of failure no matter how good you are” methodology is the wrong way for civilization to progress.
Re: Our brutal science system almost cost us a pioneer of mRNA vaccines
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's been a question I have no answer to: What do we do with all these smart people? Currently most just go inside hierarchical workplaces where they have to learn to play office politics and carry out meaningless job functions in exchange for financial security. We don't have a Bell labs anymore, science is getting more expensive and most of the venture capital money goes to software rather than to the more capita…
Maybe we don't need all those PhDs, and we should stop funnelling public money into producing an excess supply of them?
On of the effects of training too many PhDs is downward pressure on academics' salaries - i.e. the public gets their science results on the cheap.