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

I've had my resume looked at and tweaked over and over. I never send a cover letter without having someone else proofread and offer suggestions. I've lived and worked in many tech-hub places, including San Francisco for 6 years.

I just don't know... I think it's got to be socially related, but I have a hard time examining that aspect because I'm autistic. But I always make a concerted effort not to offend people, to make sure everyone gets their say and can contribute. People even say I'm a really nice guy, so then I'm left wondering what exactly "it" is that's tanking me...

It always happens the same way:

- I get a job and everyone is super friendly. Some inevitable technical hiccups getting set up for the first month, but no big deal.

- Everything goes swimmingly for the next 6 months to a year. People seem happy with me, performance reviews are fine, 1-on-1 with the boss is fine. I even make a point of asking if they're unhappy with anything about me, and they say "no, everything's fine".

Then one day things go bad (or maybe they've been bad and I didn't see). People start being rude to me, start shutting me out of conversations, start being extra harsh or petty in code reviews etc. In some cases they start name-calling. No higher-ups step in so I try to avoid the people doing this and not antagonize them.

Eventually my boss brings me in for the "it's not working out" talk. They can never give me a solid reason why, and often they resort to roundabout firing methods because it's technically illegal otherwise. There's never a warning, never a list of things to improve upon. I spend most of my days at a company wondering when I'll get "the call". The worst one happened on Dec 23rd.

So yeah... Probably nothing that anyone on HN could help with, because the feedback mechanism I'm subjected to is so vague. But it's frustrating nonetheless, and even today I have constant stress spikes whenever my boss asks to talk to me for a minute about something, wondering if this is it.

I totally agree with your diagnosis of the problem, but I don't see how your proposed solution would solve anything.

First of all, grants are needed to do any meaningful research and advance one's careers in most fields, authorship or no authorship. So the incentive to spend a disproportionate amount of time selling oneself would still be there.

Second, as you yourself imply, the reasons why young faculty don't take a more active role in research are (mostly) not voluntary, it's because they are forced into the grant treadmill. I don't see why they deserve punishment (in the form of fewer authorships) on top of that. They're already overworked getting the grants and you want them to spend more hours in the lab to get authorships in addition?

Third, how do you even police authorships? Especially when a person has a position of power due to having the funding with which other people in the lab are hired. There are already guidelines from scientific societies that in theory don't allow people who just obtained the funding to claim authorship, but people do it anyway. Even if someone complained, they can claim that they actually contributed (e.g. by going through the paper, checking and polishing for correctness) and it's very hard to disprove.

I think the solution has to be to the tune of (1) funding purely based on past CV, not projects (spare us all the effort of convincing reviewers that what we're going to do is the bee's knees, and drawing fictional Gantt charts when in research it's practically impossible to predict anything. If we have produced relevant results in the past, we will probably keep producing them); (2) flatter funding (reward better CVs with better funding, but keep decent enough funding for everyone to keep feedback loops at bay and not throw people that got unlucky with experiments under the bus); and (3) individual funding for everyone instead of a large chunk of funding that goes to the head of the lab.

In my country the R&D budget is quite small in the first place, and there were huge cuts during the 2008 crisis.

The result of the cuts was mainly that the mafias, old researchers with political influence, and people who are experts in gaming the system got to keep their funding. In general, newcomers, young researchers, and genuinely good researchers who aren't that good at gaming the system suffered the most.

No, the truth is that these problems are caused precisely by the insane levels of competitiveness for funding - and solutions must reduce that level of competitiveness for funding, not increase it.