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

Some of the forces blocking new ideas in science

mattsclancy.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 66 posts

Re: Some of the forces blocking new ideas in science

#11

Post by eesmith »

ncmncm wrote: post #5

For fields especially resistant to new ideas, Egyptology takes the prize. Thus far surface luminescence has been used only once, and produced results only just barely acceptable. A chip from a facing stone of one of the Giza pyramids, and from the Valley Temple showed an age of 5000 years, +/- 500 years, where the officially assumed age is 4500 years. That was enough of that!

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S129620741... ?

"Surface luminescence dating of some Egyptian monuments", Journal of Cultural Heritage, Volume 16, Issue 2, March–April 2015, Pages 134-150

> Surface luminescence dating to Egyptian monuments of the age range 3000 B C to Hellenistic times has been applied for first time. Monuments include the Giza plateau (Sphinx Temple, Valley Temple, Mykerinus), the Qasr-el-Saqha, the Khasekemui tomb and the Seti I Temple with Osirion at Abydos. Equivalent doses were measured by the single and multiple aliquot additive and regeneration techniques, and dose rates by portable gamma ray probes, and with laboratory counting and dosimetry systems. The resulted ages have confirmed most conventional Dynastic dates, while in some cases, predating was obtained by some hundred of years. The dates are discussed in the light of current archaeological opinions.

From the conclusion:

> Different calculated and archaeological ages, beyond one standard error, were noticed for one sample at Valley Temple at Chephren's complex (limestone), one at Sphinx Temple (granitic), and one at Seti II Abydos (sandstone).

Re: Some of the forces blocking new ideas in science

#12

Post by Fomite »

tempnow987 wrote: post #2

This primarily I think applies to ACADEMIC science. The funding game in academic science is kind of miserable. Researchers eager to maintain positions for their post docs and grad students etc pay high levels of attention to which way the funding story is going -> ie, telling funders what they want to hear is the key skill. This is not always focused on new ideas. That's because it is pretty horrible not to get funde…

`The funding game in academic science is kind of miserable. Researchers eager to maintain positions for their post docs and grad students etc pay high levels of attention to which way the funding story is going -> ie, telling funders what they want to hear is the key skill. This is not always focused on new ideas. That's because it is pretty horrible not to get funded, so getting funding is a top priority?`

I think this is oft, but not always, overstated (note, not the bit about the funding game being miserable - it is). I've had a relatively successful track record as new faculty, and my best scored grants are also my most daring. Significance and Innovation is one of the criteria the NIH reviews on, and funding is tight enough that a "meh" score there can torpedo a grant. Getting to know what your funder (and most importantly, your particular program officer) wants is critical, but what they want is not always "safe" science.

The advice I give my trainees is "Learn how to tell your story" and "Stop blowing off your Specific Aims page, it's the most important."

`Then there are compliance costs (you need to train your researches on project costing / job codes for payroll, procurement processes with federal funds etc)`

Almost all of this is handled by departmental staff or a sponsored programs office at every institution I've ever been at, using the indirect costs that Hacker News is always so fond of talking about.

Re: Some of the forces blocking new ideas in science

#13

Post by agumonkey »

tmoertel wrote: post #3

Physicist and Bayesian pioneer E. T. Janes had a pithy take on this theme: In any field, the Establishment is seldom in pursuit of the truth, because it is composed of those who sincerely believe that they are already in possession of it. From Probability Theory: The Logic of Science, E.T. Jaynes, 2003.

I'd add a minuscule idea to this important quote, those who settle themselves as authority often have deep insights and can see the limits of accepted ideas. Those who are taught the latest truth rarely have it, they admitted the paradigm as is. They contribute to the inertia.

Re: Some of the forces blocking new ideas in science

#14

Post by tempnow987 »

Fomite wrote: post #12
tempnow987 wrote: post #2

This primarily I think applies to ACADEMIC science. The funding game in academic science is kind of miserable. Researchers eager to maintain positions for their post docs and grad students etc pay high levels of attention to which way the funding story is going -> ie, telling funders what they want to hear is the key skill. This is not always focused on new ideas. That's because it is pretty horrible not to get funde…

`The funding game in academic science is kind of miserable. Researchers eager to maintain positions for their post docs and grad students etc pay high levels of attention to which way the funding story is going -> ie, telling funders what they want to hear is the key skill. This is not always focused on new ideas. That's because it is pretty horrible not to get funded, so getting funding is a top priority?` I think t…

All good points. My own sense is that if your carry isn't too big (you are not feeling a ton of pressure to maintain a pretty big funding line) life is better all around?

My own indirect experience is not NIH, but gov lab related work. This is I think more bureaucratic because the labs have funding streams, and the key goal can be not to f it up. That might move things to a somewhat heavier compliance model.

I'm not against indirect costs rates, they are a HUGE efficiency winner to avoid needing to push paper at the individual level. That said, the system it funds is not itself that efficient.

UC Berkeley I think is going to be 60%+ indirect rate for 22-23 as a local point of reference - I don't work there though.

So if you get $400K in the door you get to "keep" $160K of it.

Re: Some of the forces blocking new ideas in science

#15

Post by Fomite »

tempnow987 wrote: post #14
Fomite wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

`The funding game in academic science is kind of miserable. Researchers eager to maintain positions for their post docs and grad students etc pay high levels of attention to which way the funding story is going -> ie, telling funders what they want to hear is the key skill. This is not always focused on new ideas. That's because it is pretty horrible not to get funded, so getting funding is a top priority?` I think t…

All good points. My own sense is that if your carry isn't too big (you are not feeling a ton of pressure to maintain a pretty big funding line) life is better all around? My own indirect experience is not NIH, but gov lab related work. This is I think more bureaucratic because the labs have funding streams, and the key goal can be not to f it up. That might move things to a somewhat heavier compliance model. I'm not…

`All good points. My own sense is that if your carry isn't too big (you are not feeling a ton of pressure to maintain a pretty big funding line) life is better all around?`

Absolutely. The standard in my field is somewhere between a 50% and 100% soft money position. Mine is only 25%, and while I could probably fish around for a position at a more prestigious university, it's a big boost to my ability to go "Yeah, that seems neat, lets do it" and thus a major quality of life boost.

`UC Berkeley I think is going to be 60%+ indirect rate for 22-23 as a local point of reference - I don't work there though.`

This is not how you calculate indirect rates.

Indirect rates are a percentage of your direct rates. If X is the money you get for your lab (i.e. direct costs) and the indirect rate is 60%, then the actual calculation is 1.6X = 400,000, so X = $250,000.

If you want to point a finger at the thing that's probably the most harmful to the funding of science, it's not indirect rates. IMO, it's that the NIH budget cap for a modular R01 was set at $250,000 in direct costs in *1999* and has never moved from that.

Re: Some of the forces blocking new ideas in science

#16

Post by tempnow987 »

Fomite wrote: post #15
tempnow987 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All good points. My own sense is that if your carry isn't too big (you are not feeling a ton of pressure to maintain a pretty big funding line) life is better all around? My own indirect experience is not NIH, but gov lab related work. This is I think more bureaucratic because the labs have funding streams, and the key goal can be not to f it up. That might move things to a somewhat heavier compliance model. I'm not…

`All good points. My own sense is that if your carry isn't too big (you are not feeling a ton of pressure to maintain a pretty big funding line) life is better all around?` Absolutely. The standard in my field is somewhere between a 50% and 100% soft money position. Mine is only 25%, and while I could probably fish around for a position at a more prestigious university, it's a big boost to my ability to go "Yeah, tha…

25% sounds awesome - that's in cool and interesting projects range! Do you have responsibility for other positions. Not sure how it works where you are, I know someone who was very stressed because their proposals "carried" a fairly large group of folks.

Good point on indirect rates - I was being too quick there. Salary costs can be lower because you have to layer on fringe as well (which can be a separate pool or just a direct calc). So salary * 1.X (fringe) * 1.Y (indirect) = total award?

Re: Some of the forces blocking new ideas in science

#17

Post by Fomite »

tempnow987 wrote: post #16
Fomite wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

`All good points. My own sense is that if your carry isn't too big (you are not feeling a ton of pressure to maintain a pretty big funding line) life is better all around?` Absolutely. The standard in my field is somewhere between a 50% and 100% soft money position. Mine is only 25%, and while I could probably fish around for a position at a more prestigious university, it's a big boost to my ability to go "Yeah, tha…

25% sounds awesome - that's in cool and interesting projects range! Do you have responsibility for other positions. Not sure how it works where you are, I know someone who was very stressed because their proposals "carried" a fairly large group of folks. Good point on indirect rates - I was being too quick there. Salary costs can be lower because you have to layer on fringe as well (which can be a separate pool or ju…

Answering this bit first:

`Good point on indirect rates - I was being too quick there. Salary costs can be lower because you have to layer on fringe as well (which can be a separate pool or just a direct calc). So salary * 1.X (fringe) * 1.Y (indirect) = total award?`

Yeah, this is how that math works, at least at my institution, with some rare exceptions.

`25% sounds awesome - that's in cool and interesting projects range! Do you have responsibility for other positions. Not sure how it works where you are, I know someone who was very stressed because their proposals "carried" a fairly large group of folks.`

It really is awesome, and I'm tremendously privileged to be in that position. It's especially nice in my field (infectious disease epidemiology) because in basically all outbreaks, the work we do is uncompensated for ~ 6 months or so and then you sort of hope for grants to back fill it (I had, for example, done my best work on the pandemic prior to getting any funding for it).

You have however nailed the primary source of my stress - keeping "my" people funded. Graduate students (the downside of my position is its in a place where TA lines are functionally non-existent), postdocs, etc. are my responsibility, and keeping them funded is most of the reason I write grants.

We're experimenting for some staff positions (because 100% funding a staff scientist on grant money is daunting and terrifying for a single PI) with using a pool of funding, to address that while four of us may be able to pay 25% of a data analyst, none of us can pay 100%, with gaps in that backfilled by some institutional resources.

Re: Some of the forces blocking new ideas in science

#18

Post by mxkopy »

tempnow987 wrote: post #2

This primarily I think applies to ACADEMIC science. The funding game in academic science is kind of miserable. Researchers eager to maintain positions for their post docs and grad students etc pay high levels of attention to which way the funding story is going -> ie, telling funders what they want to hear is the key skill. This is not always focused on new ideas. That's because it is pretty horrible not to get funde…

While I would agree that DEI isn't directly about science, it certainly helps the end goal of understanding some phenomenon as holistically possible.

I think these sorts of policies are aimed more towards administrators rather than researchers, which for some reason are often the same people.

I think academia could benefit from adopting the music industry's approach to managing talent - i.e. the managing and talent are usually kept separate.

Re: Some of the forces blocking new ideas in science

#19

Post by nostrebored »

joe_the_user wrote: post #10

The thing about this article is it seems to make the implicit assumption that hostility to novelty is a bad thing. I don't think that's justified. Obviously, allow no new ideas into a field and it will die but allow too many new ideas into a field and you have a recipe for the field becoming a pseudo-science. Before you propose changes to allow more ideas in, it would be appropriate to have some measure of whether a…

That would require a level of meta awareness about science that adherents of specific fields just don’t have.

People could’ve said the same about phlogiston.

We live in an age where we assume we are right about most things, that’s completely historically unjustified.

Re: Some of the forces blocking new ideas in science

#20

Post by russdill »

tempnow987 wrote: post #2

This primarily I think applies to ACADEMIC science. The funding game in academic science is kind of miserable. Researchers eager to maintain positions for their post docs and grad students etc pay high levels of attention to which way the funding story is going -> ie, telling funders what they want to hear is the key skill. This is not always focused on new ideas. That's because it is pretty horrible not to get funde…

The funding game is a miserable slog, but people are in academia because they want to do their research. If they wanted to use their expertise to obtain a paycheck, there are typically much better opportunities to do so.
Post reply on HN