Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Our brutal science system almost cost us a pioneer of mRNA vaccines

wbur.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 293 posts

Re: Our brutal science system almost cost us a pioneer of mRNA vaccines

#141

Post by rsfern »

alpineidyll3 wrote: post #114
laretluval wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> stop rewarding "I wrote the grant" With authorships. How could this work? If you have more grant money you have more resources to write papers.

Many faculty getting the most funding are never involved in writing the papers attributed to them. (Source: years spent at the top five universities and my own faculty experience) Would work simply: fund students directly. If faculty contribute training or ideas students can grant authorship. Faculty/postdocs still peer review papers.

I really like this idea of funding students directly, I feel like it’s pretty well aligned with e.g. the NSF’s mission wrt workforce development, and it reduces the power imbalance for students who find themselves in a toxic group environment

I guess there’s still a need for bigger grants because some labs cost more than others to run, but those grants could cover the cost of equipment and materials without having to directly cover student salaries.

Re: Our brutal science system almost cost us a pioneer of mRNA vaccines

#142

Post by usrusr »

etrautmann wrote: post #123
josephg wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but this narrative that success -- in any field -- isn't dependent on your ability to sell yourself is problematic. Some people make fantastic researchers and are terrible at selling themselves and their work. It seems like a bad deal for everyone if these people are blocked from making contributions to science.

Yes - the idea that everyone in science must be a fantastic Jack or Jill of all trades is absurd. There is no room for oddballs that are missing any of 20 subtle skills, including many social ones that should have little to do with research skill. Incentivizing teams to succeed instead of individuals is essential for reforming our current broken system.

The question is what would be the alternative to grant applications. A grant lottery?Tenure lottery? Stop funding entirely and just include "dear God, make our science advance" in your evening prayer? Nobody considers the grant treadmill an achievement to be proud of, but arguments against the claim that it's the least bad solution have to go beyond just "it's not good".

Re: Our brutal science system almost cost us a pioneer of mRNA vaccines

#143

Post by ngcc_hk »

SCUSKU wrote: post #116
lumost wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

While at first I balked at this idea, I suppose what you're proposing is crowdsourcing academic research funding. Naturally, the first thing that comes to mind is how accountability can be managed. One of the major pitfalls of the crowdfunding model seems to be that the fundraisers can make like bandits with the money, with seemingly little recourse, or incentive for the crowd.

One nay wonder one can make a human gene fish ... monkey and pig are what chinese good at but I guess fish is easier. Look at those lovely eye from... want a crowd fund or public fund ...

But the key would be attention. It will draw attention.

What the worst is private fund one may say then.

What is the key issue is what the goverence model or ethical standard. Probably competition across nations ... it will kill us.

Re: Our brutal science system almost cost us a pioneer of mRNA vaccines

#144

Post by analog31 »

odyssey7 wrote: post #56

Is 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…

I finished my PhD in physics, and went straight into industry. After a bit of job hopping, I now help design scientific equipment.

I knew that I was not cut out to be a research superstar. I've had a good career with no regrets, have never had to work obscene hours, and live in a pleasant town.

Re: Our brutal science system almost cost us a pioneer of mRNA vaccines

#145

Post by UncleMeat »

josephg wrote: post #119
timr wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The grant system completely compromises most faculty'$ ability to do anything with their decades of training besides sell themselves. I agree that the academic world is broken, but this narrative that success -- in any field -- isn't dependent on your ability to sell yourself is problematic. I left academia behind because I saw that it was a brutal, improbable grind, sure, but mainly because I could see that the sa…

> but this narrative that success -- in any field -- isn't dependent on your ability to sell yourself is problematic. Some people make fantastic researchers and are terrible at selling themselves and their work. It seems like a bad deal for everyone if these people are blocked from making contributions to science.

Yes, but how do you identify these people? The whole grant process is trying to find these people and give them money.

Re: Our brutal science system almost cost us a pioneer of mRNA vaccines

#146

Post by mattkrause »

avidphantasm wrote: post #97
odyssey7 wrote: post #56

Is 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.

Even though students are individually cheaper, I'm not totally convinced that a largely-trainee work force is really the most cost-effective overall[0].

My postdoc lab has gone through 3-4 (and counting) cycles of figuring out how to perform a certain type of experiment, only for the person doing it to move on. Having someone quasi-permanant to keep that knowledge around would not only let the experiments go a lot faster, but it'd save on very expensive, very fragile consumables.

[0] Not only are students/postdocs individually cheaper, but there are also lots more sources of funding for them, so it might even be rational for a lab or department, even if it's not actually true for the funder.

Re: Our brutal science system almost cost us a pioneer of mRNA vaccines

#147

Post by alpineidyll3 »

timr wrote: post #115
alpineidyll3 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

> The grant system completely compromises most faculty'$ ability to do anything with their decades of training besides sell themselves. I agree that the academic world is broken, but this narrative that success -- in any field -- isn't dependent on your ability to sell yourself is problematic. I left academia behind because I saw that it was a brutal, improbable grind, sure, but mainly because I could see that the sa…

It's true one must advocate for one's self. It's not true that we should choose structures that require more self promotion than productivity. Academia used to be rife with corners where obscure problem solvers could live a decent life. The pressure for grant monies and summer salaries have done away with those corners and it shouldn't be so.

Re: Our brutal science system almost cost us a pioneer of mRNA vaccines

#148

Post by alpineidyll3 »

rsfern wrote: post #141
alpineidyll3 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many faculty getting the most funding are never involved in writing the papers attributed to them. (Source: years spent at the top five universities and my own faculty experience) Would work simply: fund students directly. If faculty contribute training or ideas students can grant authorship. Faculty/postdocs still peer review papers.

I really like this idea of funding students directly, I feel like it’s pretty well aligned with e.g. the NSF’s mission wrt workforce development, and it reduces the power imbalance for students who find themselves in a toxic group environment I guess there’s still a need for bigger grants because some labs cost more than others to run, but those grants could cover the cost of equipment and materials without having to…

Yeah. I think simply making faculty apply for infrastructure and only funding students and no faculty time is the right way to go. Unfortunately this is the opposite of the way that the NSF is being propelled (since panels are dominated by 'eminent scientists' ~= well connected old lazy scientists)

Re: Our brutal science system almost cost us a pioneer of mRNA vaccines

#149

Post by alpineidyll3 »

UncleMeat wrote: post #145
josephg wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but this narrative that success -- in any field -- isn't dependent on your ability to sell yourself is problematic. Some people make fantastic researchers and are terrible at selling themselves and their work. It seems like a bad deal for everyone if these people are blocked from making contributions to science.

Yes, but how do you identify these people? The whole grant process is trying to find these people and give them money.

If we weren't paying every mafioso at harvard 200k/yr in summer salary, we could fund a good number of them at subsistence wage. (note: there are also many decent people at harvard...)

Re: Our brutal science system almost cost us a pioneer of mRNA vaccines

#150

Post by alpineidyll3 »

usrusr wrote: post #142
etrautmann wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes - the idea that everyone in science must be a fantastic Jack or Jill of all trades is absurd. There is no room for oddballs that are missing any of 20 subtle skills, including many social ones that should have little to do with research skill. Incentivizing teams to succeed instead of individuals is essential for reforming our current broken system.

The question is what would be the alternative to grant applications. A grant lottery?Tenure lottery? Stop funding entirely and just include "dear God, make our science advance" in your evening prayer? Nobody considers the grant treadmill an achievement to be proud of, but arguments against the claim that it's the least bad solution have to go beyond just "it's not good".

How about actually measuring them by the citation count on their papers (note this is already a minor factor in tenure decisions, after monies brought in :P )
Post reply on HN