picture source
I started in the academic world full of ideas and ideals. I intended to solve global warming and discovery different alternatives to oil as fuel.
The very word "scientific" is an adjective that gives importance and authority, but there is an inflation and erosion of the values of the process of scientific discovery.
In my career as a researcher I have noticed that there are harmful trends in the scientific and academic world that hinder the development of the potential of many people. I think it is a great loss for everyone and we must discuss solutions. One of my goals with my Steemit.com account is to open this debate.
Today I will only mention one of the aspects which is happening:
"The competition to appear as an author in a maximum of publications".
Your value as a candidate to obtain scholarships or financing for projects depends mostly on your publications (author of articles, book chapter, reports, patents, or plans, etc.). The more the better!
Do you see potential for abuse ...?
When I found out about this need to publish, I had just graduated from Chemistry and my mind began to make calculations of time and work. If you work in the scientific field and you are very efficient, you could have conclusive results of your research and present the results in one or two articles each year. This could demonstrate sufficient academic, professional, scientific or research merit and be positively qualified for any funding.
Then I found, to my surprise, that my colleagues published 3 or 4 articles per year! How do they do that? What am I doing wrong?
Nothing, my first surprise was that they were playing another strategy.
Their strategy was to create and publish lots and lots of papers no matter the content. If since the previous publication they changed a variable; bingo! Another publication! If they analyzed their product from another angle, another publication! And so on.
I was puzzled, because there are people who in this way fatten their curriculum very much with material of relatively low consequence.
This is generating important academic inflation!
[In a next post I will explain the role of scientific magazines, what happens with the copyright, and the advantages offered by open access].
But, really the contribution to the field of knowledge is almost nil.
They publish and study things that do not solve any problems, nor offer real solutions to society.
For example; If you live in Latin America why do you study and publish about the Australian kangaroo? Science and academia are often disconnected from society.
When I understood that the game of publishing without meaning was not my thing I decided to change and look for answers in biotechnology.
I started preparing in this field and then worked with a multidisciplinary team of engineers, biologists, pharmacists and chemists.
It was really great!
The number of ideas and solutions we wanted to bring to the oil remediation area was promising.
We were committed to the job, we designed a plan, and we were predicting good results.
When starting to look for money to develop the project a government company was interested in financing us.
In fact they did, we were working 1 year to get the first results.
But we found to our surprise that after that time the company stated that it was withdrawing for "X" reason.
Well, it happens ... Our team disbanded and we could not finish the whole investigation.
During that year, however, we had presented the whole plan of work to the company that financed us...
Imagine our surprise when, after a year, this company had filed 3 patents in the USA Patent Office with our complete investigation!!!
Yes, they paid us while we gave them our ideas and then they stayed and exploited them ... despite all our legal efforts we did not recover the copyright of our ideas.
Que Putada!!!
Then you wonder, can you steal ideas?
The answer is YES, of course!
In this case it was a big fish taking advantage of a smaller one, but believe me this happens every day at all levels.
This opens your eyes, unfortunately I have seen it more times than I would have liked.
There are researchers and academics who in their eagerness to publish can steal not only ideas, but also the entire results from their co-workers.
I have also had very hardworking colleagues who have found excellent results in their research projects, even publishing patents.
But they have been coerced by their tutors to sign that they waive any benefit that the patent may generate in the future. Another theft of ideas on a large scale. The result of all this is a pyramid game, in return of years of slavery work (endless hours and super demanding for very low salaries in certain cases) you receive as payment a paper with the fancy title of PhD, which is supposed to guarantee a good job (more about the lousy job market for scientists later).
This is the tip of the iceberg if you compare it with the number of articles that offer false and impossible to duplicate results. The macro problem is that entire fields of science are losing credibility, you can only trust some researchers (which you learn from hard experience), and not all the results of published scientific articles can be relied upon anymore.
In recent years, initiatives to avoid this tendency has been seen. Firstly by the commissions evaluating scholarship and funding programs. They ask you to be the main author of your publication (many co-authors actually had little to do with the paper). They like you to do research in qualified study centers, where you need to present preliminary results annually, etc.
But I think ethical training is needed in scientific careers; It also takes some humanity and collaboration. It is not enough just to be a lone genius, you have to work in teams to accomplish true scientific progress.
I think there are many things to improve!! What is your opinion?
Thank you for bringing this up.
For me, this issue is so tired, I don't even feel like mentioning it. The "publish or perish" mentality is in the core of Japanese academia. Institutions get financed for their research output, and there is very little control over the quality of that output (recently, the ministry of education started to address copy and pasting as well as other unethical research and publishing techniques some of which you mentioned, so I have to give them credit for that).
I know that large institutions in Japan also hire based on a point system. Basically, they look at your resume, and the first thing they do is count the number of publications, presentations, etc. Each achievement is worth a certain number of points. The people with the most points go in one pile, with fewer points - in the garbage can. This system is necessary when you have to process over 1000 applications, but as you can assume easily abusable, and that's exactly what is happening. Plus, everyone gets absolutely obsessed with presentations and publications to somehow beef up their resume and show they are active researchers.
Thanks for your comment.
Unfortunately, I have heard that confidence in the results of the paper from Japan (and much more from China) has gone down a lot.
But indeed here in Spain happens the same, quantity above quality.
These systems reward speed and volume of production over the true scientific value of their work.
I think the problem is that recruiters don't have the time to really look into the quality of the publications, so they go for easy metrics.
That seems to be valid for every parts of 'modern' societies. I hate it. Research, work processes have to be fast and cheap instead of focusing on quality, thoroughness and real understanding.
Well, the Japanese research community is doing a good job to keep it contained within Japan - likely to avoid further embarrassment (the Obokata incident, anyone?). I frankly speaking cry when I read articles from humanities here (that's my field, I won't speak for sciences), and you can't but hang your head in despair looking at some graduate theses... I mean, really... Good job devaluating PhDs and Master's even further. As if the production line style of university graduation rates were not harming degree value enough.
Ah, time to go to bed... Can't get too excited here. Japan is a beautiful country if you can do like the three famous monkeys.
Yes, it is sad! It is not the fault of the people, but clearly the system has serious issues.
It pains me that everyone is keeping silent, and even simple questions are not welcome about regarding what this system is doing for us.
This lack of curiousity about our own science system itself is the most unscientific attitude you can imagine.
Talking about this issue, quickly gets you labelled as a subversive, here I thought it was up to scientists to investigate and experiment to find better solutions.
The power of consensus is indeed terrifying.
Yes! Exactly!
There was an excellent article by @kyriacos discussing the shenanigans going on in science today:
https://steemit.com/science/@kyriacos/science-under-attack
Yes, this is incredible. The academia is so corrupt, it's unbelievable. Maybe the scientific human spirit can rise again in free association - free speech - and free networking platforms like steemit.
yes and no, I think very much like steemit, behaviour is a consequence of incentives. people observe what gets them ahead in life and try to do that to see if it works.
It is difficult to be an idealist if you don't have a job...
But on a macro scale I think that academia is making itself fast irrelevant, they are eroding their own basis for their respectability and in a few years we will hear laments "nobody respects science anymore". I wonder why...
It's already becoming a reality! :
https://steemit.com/science/@rieki/is-science-just-another-religion-21st-century-dogma-faith-in-science-and-the-cult-of-objectivity-1498976562-7605853
O wow, epic post and your reply is equally epic. Will need a clearer head to give a sensible reply!
👍 :)
We, as humans are corrupt, not surprising that anything we build is a corrupt system. And there it leads us? We are destroying the planet, our home. So we think that we should do something with corrupt institutions we are created and reinvent same demon again and again.
Great post! This confirms what I was telling someone on another post about the science being "settled," as some politicians would have us believe when trying to promote scams like the Paris Peace Accord. My point was, do not tell me the science is settled, and then hide behind environmentalism to justify forcing an unnecessary and unproductive tax scheme on the public, and then act like I am morally bankrupt if I refuse to go along with it. I went on to summate the process that you just described in great detail into a few sentences as reason to doubt "the science" regarding this matter. Thanks for the confirmation.
I couldn't agree more. See my original reply to this article above for what I wrote...
This post received a 3.4% upvote from @randowhale thanks to @the-traveller! For more information, click here!
Well done post You deserve for getting Upvote from me. I appreciate on it and like it so much . Waiting for your latest post. Keep your good work and steeming on. Let's walk to my blog. I have a latest post. Your upvote is high motivation for me. Almost all Steemians do their best on this site. Keep steeming and earning.
This comment has received a 0.04 % upvote from @booster thanks to: @hamzaoui.
My opinion is that academia and scientism is a thinking man's NASCAR, an intellectual brothel, and a gambling casino for intelligentsia.
You aren't going to find morality and honesty in academia any more than you will find it in organized crime syndicates.
At least robbers have been known to have "honor among thieves."
It's debatable whether organized, academic, scientific pursuits have as good a reputation. Scientists are probably better respected than lawyers and politicians and bureaucrats, but less so than pole dancers and beauticians.
Have you considered going into the fashion or hospitality sectors?
I don't know if my tears are from laughing so hard or crying about how sadly true your comments are
My tongue was hurting, being inside my cheek for that long of a cynical post. Lolol
wow so true. I gave up trying to pursue a PhD after what I've seen happening in the academia. Still trying real hard to convince my wife not to continue down the rabbit hole. Considering the expense of all the time and effort you spent only to have someone suck you dry, geez, totally not worth it.
At the end of the day, it's all about the $$$. Sigh....
☝"Ethical training is needed in scientific careers" That describes your blogpost very well.
What a topic! Don't get me started :)
I'm so sick of it...
You're right about everything. Sometimes is possible to investigate in order to solve some problems (to some extent) but forget about fundamental research.
Oh, why am I not surprised about the scientific community? This world is fucked up on so many levels because of money and our greed... :/ Thanks for sharing this!
Seu comentário reflete completamente meu pensamento. posso ser um sonhador mas ainda tenho esperança no ser humano.
This is where Google translate becomes handy :)) I have started to become more of a pessimist lately.
Welcome to corporate science. I recall two editors resigned - from the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine - for the same reason: they were sick of publishing fake science sponsored by their advertisers.
Thanks for your comment. It is nice to see that some people still have integrity but I have to wonder how many articles have been published that are shaky...
Oh, if I recall was over 50% junk. It can all be searched - i just can't recall their names.
The deeply serious issue is that the public are sold this naive notion that "science will correct itself" and therefore any fraud is temporary, but that is just not true. Try to research anything leading edge that is not approved by the current dogma and you are going to have a hard life. On the corporate side, $5 bn of profits followed by $1 bn of lawsuits - just do the maths.
My idealistic side demands a complete overhaul. It would have to start in our political governing bodies. We need more scientists in politics! Then laws could be established that promote, require, and/or reward substantial, novel research and deter research "spamming." Someday.
Very interesting article. Thank you. I look forward to more of your articles in the future. I have noticed this in the medical literature. Instead of just studying the plain old pharmacokinetics of a substance they will study the pharmacokinetics of a substance, and a seemingly irrelevant substance with it like a herb that few people have every heard of. I guess that is the adding onto literature just to publish something.
It sounds so perverse the way Scientists are incentivized through number of articles published and quantity over quality. I think the only way to battle this is to probably not succumb to it if it is possible to survive and make a living as a scientist in the meantime. And yes, ideas are so easily copied and stolen - from what I have seen there is no defense, although I do believe there is starting to be more of a crackdown on legal trolls that file patents in order to sue and make money. The only other defense on ideas is to just keep having them and having good ones, because the liars and cheats are not able to generate their own original ideas. Sooner or later the world somehow figures out authenticity and karma catches up to the cheats.
Also remember, many of these scientists are smart and can see that game that has to be played to get/stay employed. So we should not be surprised when they play in a way to maximize their gain in this game (publication count).
Also, getting external funding (mainly grants) is a similar type of game with crazy things happening (I've been a grant reviewer enough times to see some of the stuff). This along with some other issues (lack of funding of public universities for one) has caused some tenured faculty to leave and find employment elsewhere.
I also publish (not too often) but luckily its not a requirement for my current job (it does help for promotion)
Fair point. Just a shame that you and other scientists need to waste their precious time playing those games. Any good luck and congrats on launching a post that stimulated so many responses! You picked a hot and original topic for Steemit :)
exactly, I think that sooner or later the frauds will be found out in these companies.
For your remarks about the ideas, I think that the blockchain itself and steemit can be interesting solutions to protect the author of ideas: if it is published first on the blockchain, it can´t be faked and it will prove that you were the first to have the idea.
The blockchain is good for what it is, a general ledger of events, however, without laws wrapped around it, it will be meaningless. There was a thought provoking short post on this site about contracts and the blockchain.
https://www.thehutchreport.com/blog-post/2017/6/20/blockchain-smart-contracts-what-happens-if-they-are-not-honored
They are also on steemit: @thehutchreport
Basically saying we are still going to need some robust legal structures built up around this.
Interesting! Thanks for the link I will check it out!
Really Amazing Stuff and Beautifully Presented...
Thank you for sharing and have a blessed day :)
it will be a pleasure if you check my blog once...
https://steemit.com/@raja
Thank you very much!
Very nice to hear!
Of course I'll have a look at your blog. I will follow you with interest!
This is a great post @lys I'm thankful that I came across you via @the-traveller, who has helped me to refine my thinking/writing, by thoughful dialogue(I've got a long way to go, but I use the excuse that I received a public education via the U.S. indoctrination centers, so there is a lot of new learning/relearning to do on my part)
I experience great joy when I read posts like yours, and a earlier post I read today from @kencode ( the post was yesterday) that talks about continuing to plug away in adversity.
Thanks again.
SDG
Thank you, that means a lot!!
I am just starting out but it is so refreshing to have so many intelligent and constructive comments. It really motivates me to write more articles.
Your posting is very good and realistic. I think the blockchain will minimize the possibility that ideas will be stolen or disrespected when we find the decentralized way of publishing patents. I think today, with a little effort, the blockchain is already a space to publish ideas and leave evidence to answer fraudulent patents.
On the publication of useless scientific works only to make number, I imagine that at some point we will have the reputation of the authors and the works to diminish this tendency.
Thanks for your comment!!
I think the same.
Blockchain technology is probably useful for many other things than we currently realize. Imagine running open access on the blockchain. It would solve more than one problem.
After publication of the paper on a blockchain, verification of investigation results by other atuhors could also be independently linked so it is immediatly obvious if results are reproducible or not. The whole quoting system would be much more useful if you can trace reproducibility.
Hi @lys , Wow... you have covered a lot of areas in this post and I agree with you for the most part.
I partly disagree with you when you say that all people look for is the sheer amount of publications someone has and are not concerned about their actual content. This is true to some extent as a lot of publications is seen as being a good thing, however, every paper that is published in a reputable journal usually has an impact factor associated with it.
The academics that I work with are more concerned about publishing a paper that has a big impact factor on the scientific community than publishing streams of pointless junk.
As you have said though, there is a part of the scientific community that is only concerned about the amount of publications, as this is good for grants etc. However I do think this is field specific.
In terms of protecting your Intellectual Property, this is something that needs to be considered on a individual basis. My University for example will actively support and encourage you to create patients, other universities do not allow for this, and some funding bodies actually own your intellectual property, so this really is a murky area indeed.
I suppose all you can really do in such a situation is read your contract thoroughly and ensure your property is protected. It sucks to hear you lost your intellectual property to someone else, this isn't the first time I've heard of this happen and unfortunately i'm sure it wont be the last.
Your reference to slave labour is SO TRUE! and this drives me crazy! It is so annoying that for most research areas there are literally only a FEW people in the world who are qualified to hold that position. YET, they expect you to work like a dog, give them everything and you get sh*t pay. This is really unfair, however I do blame the scientists before me for this! Whenever you talk to them and mention this, most of them will say:
"I enjoy my work, I don't do it for the money" so they are literally setting a standard for people to take advantage them and effectively sanctioning this treatment.
Anyways, I've said enough, good post, I'm following you, feel free to follow back @dr-physics :)
I agree with you, I recognize that there are certainly researchers who want to publish articles that have a great impact factor for the scientific community.
It is deplorable that the long days are in some cases paid with almost symbolic salaries which do not recognize the work done.
Everytime I mention this, I am told "we need to sacrifice your salary to buy better equipment (the latest toys) and be competitive"
On the other hand, we are also often chasing empty titles and recognition, so as scientists we are not blameless perhaps... Any pyramid game needs suckers to fill out the bottom... Plenty of people are next in line if you refuse to play the game...
We begin with many ideals, and those are often abused by institutions to further their own agenda without developing the potential of the people they depend on.
I wouldn't regard the salaries as symbolic, I would just consider them to be shocking low in comparison to other professions. I don't know how the salaries are distributed in Spanish Universities, however in the UK the salary is more-or-less a standard amount that is based around the salaries paid by research councils.
Researchers work extremely hard, long hours and generally put everything into their work. This work benefits the whole of society, however gratitude is not reflected in the form of a salary that's for sure.
Hi Dr Physics, I know some Spanish Phd candidates. If they are lucky they earn about as much as a cashier in a supermarket say about 900€.
I coached one of these Phd candidates. She was already a year in and starting to crack under the psychological terror of her tutor (really psychological warfare tactics)
Anyway. When starting to look at her motivations and goals we started exploring. She said her goal was to become a university professor. OK, as a coach you get to ask the stupid questions "What would it take to become a university professor?" "..."
She did not know, so she went to find out:
After completing her doctorate (in about 4 years, obviously she had a Bachelor's and Masters already so 4 years already done)
After 8 years of study she would have a Phd in her hands. Not enough...
She found out it "is expected" that she'd do a Post-doc of another year of course abroad
... still not enough
After that she might be accepted as an Assistant professor, which would mean that she'd need to do the dirty work for about 600€ a month and thennnn...if she did not step on anyone's toes ... she might be accepted as a full time professor.
And will make about 2000-2500 € a month.
So that is an investment of
Bachelor 3
Masters 1
Phd 4- 6 (many seem to plateau and stick around before finishing)
Post doc 1
Assistant Professor 2-4
So in total about 11 - 15 years of your life to get a job with a pay any normal professional should be earning in the first 5 years of their career.
Needless to say, she started to realize she was wasting her time and found a job teaching in high school which was something she enjoyed much more...
@lys I started out with dreaming of a career in physics, I am thankful that I gained insight into the depths of engineering civilization - so much needs to improve that it is beyond mere researchers in academia, no it goes to the very foundation of the worldwide monetary system.
Which connects to why certain projects can be funded (regardless of the costs) over the more meritorious projects costing less and potentially more beneficial to humanity as a whole. Again the amount of research & engineering that goes into destructive warfare is a travesty and unethical use when you consider behavioural science deployed in mass deception and military grade psyops.
I've written about the "New Record, Over 100 Peer Reviewed Studies Was Retracted From Cancer Journal" - this is not simply greed it is a symptom ...
I'm glad you are seeing the moral conflict and sharing your observations.
wow, did not know about that about the cancer studies, imagine how much damage this can do to medicine and trust of patients in their cure. Do you have a link?
Sure @lys , Fake Science: A New Record, Over 100 Peer Reviewed Studies Was Retracted From Cancer Journal
There were previous published fake peer review that I wrote about years earlier, and I had hoped the problems were addressed but this showed that the peer-review process is systemically flawed...
https://ronmamita.wordpress.com/2017/04/26/fake-science-a-new-record-over-100-peer-reviewed-studies-was-retracted-from-cancer-journal/
Looks interesting! Thanks for the link. I hope to write another article about the issues around scientific publishing and the journal industry. This might give some more ammunition!
Ha-ha, No shortage there it's an industrial ammunition manufacturing plant! LOL 😃
Look into astronomy and see the "Red-shift" star light controversy; once again peer review process was problematic...
Happy hunting - ahem, researching!
@lys that term "academic inflation" is so spot on. Those schools then turn around and say "x% of our students are published in top journals around the world", and use that basis to charge more in tuition and fees.
It is sad that there are some really valuable projects that could benefit the whole world but are being sidelined for the revenue-generating content.
When I was studying physics and astronomy at university, one day I asked my physics professor - the head of the department - why we were not investigating cold fusion. He said that if he even mentioned cold fusion EVER, all of his research funding would be eliminated and he would be so disgraced as to retire, despite his tenure. He said this is because the majority of research money comes from corporate industry such as oil, electric and defense. Universities exist to re-enforce and profit the existing big (BIG) industry profit infrastructure. Much like governments, they are built on lies and the population will largely never allow themselves to awaken to the lies.
That's why perhaps the real research and innovation needs to come from privatization. So, get rich and then fund your own projects. That way, you don't have to give a crap about those big corporate firm and government.
A hahaha. The problem is that a large portion of geniuses are terrible at getting rich on their own. Not all of them, though. Elon Musk is a good example of an exception. We hear about the ones who do it, but there are thousands just grinding away in labs making a salary.
Great post, thank you.
As a chemistry graduate you might appreciate this, my daughter is heading to Caltech(California Institute of Technology) in August as a grad student. She'll be working for a professor focused on a synthetic fuel solution.
Starting to work in a group that wants to solve a problem can really make you grow as a scientist. I know that many research groups work in favor of synergy and ethics. Where all members are valued and recognized for their work and competition is healthy. Your daughter should be humble and prepared to learn but at the same be aware that she should not be taken advantage of. She should not be treated as a slave ...
Great advise, I'll have her read this when she gets up, thank you.
same as everywhere.. hard work for your professors almost for nothing
The trend of commodifying information and knowledge has to stop.
How many advances have been hindered by those that want to stifle the exchange of ideas to protect some imaginary profit in the future?
Its likely to be too many to count reliably. Like any system, if it can be gamed without any severe consequences, it will until its underlying structure becomes non-functional. In a way, academic "inflation" is the process that will accelerate this to its logical conclusion.
We're really on the cusp of being replaced by something more rational, whether that is a breakout AI or something else, I really wouldn't mind if things swung in the direction of the most logical construct having an advantage.
We had our chance, and we blew it. And continue to waste our potential.
I think the best researchers also help people (clinicians) or make products (manufacturers). That gives their research guidance and relevance and if they can still find the time for lots of RCT's, more power to them.
Yes, that's true. But keep in mind that these researchers have behind them a large group of doctoral students and assistants who bring many of the ideas and solutions. And their work must be recognized as well.
Yeah, I guess there's a political environment pretty much any way you look at it.
Informative. Thank you.
I have enjoyed this article and have seen (or have heard about) some strange/unethical like actions at my time in grad school (Masters level in Canada).
What turned me off about academic research and PhD studies is the time length and the academic culture. I like math and stats but I am not 100% obsessed with it to the point I crave it 24/7. Also, I feel like the academia culture is kind of in its own bubble. The publish or perish environment that I have heard of does not sound appealing and does not emphasize quality over quantity.
I once had an interesting talk with a fellow grad student (now Phd student) that there are studies that industry research is more reliable than academic research. It sounds interesting but I do not know if there is a lot of truth to this.
On a unrelated note, have you ever come across with PhD Comics? They have grad school humour.
Thanks for your comment.
I've seen PhD Comics, black humor of what really happens :-)
I think this populer quote sums up a huge part of the problem quite nicely.
"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."
William Bruce Cameron
Papers and presentations can be tallied quickly. Whereas, quality of work cannot.
follow the money
More evidence to the farce of global warming research... We have more scientists than at any time in the past. They must publish or become irrelevant.
I'm a contrarian. When everyone believes something that is masked in controversy and when anyone opposes the consensus view is ostracized and labeled a denier, you must take a deep look to consider that something that smells fishy, probably is.
My sister recently finished her PhD in Nursing. 18 months before graduating, she was working on a project with a Federal government body. As part of joining the team, she provided her complete PhD research in order to provide the maximum contribution (prior to her publishing any of it).
6 months later I got an incredible phone call from her. The lead researcher (PhD) and her colleague, an Attorney, had just published a paper exactly covering her research. It included exactly her terminology and discussion of the research model she developed. Sadly, there was nothing she could do about it and had to accept that this was part of the life of research.
Where is the integrity in science? If you can't produce original work, then don't go into research. Where is the accountability?
Our educational system is always promoting higher and higher education. Why, because this helps them ever expand education and their revenue. As an example, the best physical therapist I've ever had only had a bachelor degree (from the 80s). When I was going through engineering school in the 90s, you could only earn a masters degree in PT. Today, you can only earn a doctorate degree in PT. I've asked these Doctor of physical therapists why it's required. The only answer I get is it allows for them to direct bill. So its really all about money and not about health care.
I could go on...
I'm so sorry for your sister, I felt it like a blow to the liver. I hope she does not get discouraged, you just have to be better than that. I think that you can work being honest and ethical, sometimes against the system.
She is brilliant and incredibly unique in her skillset. Even the bad experience can't stop someone like her from succeeding and adding value. Fortunately, in her field there is a lack of experts and even fewer with integrity. Her future looks very bright and I get be on the sideline watching it happen!
This reminds me of this article I read and commented on today:
https://steemit.com/science/@rieki/is-science-just-another-religion-21st-century-dogma-faith-in-science-and-the-cult-of-objectivity-1498976562-7605853
When I read stories like yours, I try to sniff out the problems hiding behind it. For instance, what does it mean that quantity is favored over quality? Why? Why do they want more and more, at a quicker and quicker pace? Could it be that competition and capitalism have entered the academic arena where only the pure search for knowledge should rule (and money will always come as a natural result of that)? And then people steal all your ideas because their mind is a desert that wouldn't be able to grow an idea if it was buried in fertilizer - reminds me of Wall Street people.
Knowledge takes time, and it takes money. If scientists aren't allowed to earn from their own discoveries, there won't be any money. If scientists are pushed to publish, they will yield lower quality research, like most of the articles on steemit.
Anyway, the above may be a gross misunderstanding of what really lies behind the problems you've faced. But in the end, I'm an optimist, because I think if science doesn't solve this, then basically science will perish. Science relies on results. Without those, it's gone. The world needs science, it needs scientists, so I'm positive it will figure out a solution.
Good article. You've gained a new follower in me Ledys!
Thank you for the link, It looks super interesting . I need a clear head to comment, so I will wait until tomorrow.
👍
Hello!!
I really totally agree with you and I share your optimism! The scientific field will evolve to a better direction.
I read the post of @rieki and I agree with some of his ideas as well. Thanks for giving me the link!
👍
Your post inspire me. Thank u for the post
Thank you, I try to say what so many people are keeping silent about... but I am very glad it inspired you, I hope we can find solutions...
Research will not run out in this world, what else in the science of technology, I really like the research.
But my research is inclined to the social science of education.
If only our young people were aware of this. Their school counselors are blindly pushing them all into academia
Young people should keep their ideals, being scientific no longer has to be confined to academia.
You can do science yourself!
Unfortunately many people lack confidence and they think they need a title or a big company to validate you as a scientist and a thinker.
I think more and more it is possible to start out with a group of like minded friends and start your own investigations. Kids in highschool are coming up with remarkable solutions, that is actually real scientific progress and discovery, the whole "business" of science publications is doing more harm than good...
There seems to be a need in most areas for more oversight and review of the processes that we now respect.
Excellent publication steemado
I couldn't agree more. I've been involved in several research efforts for growing businesses. They expect one person to produce all the equipment, technology, and ideas for little pay. I decided to branch off and do my own research. It would be nice to have a team.
For you i have very simple and short reply Dear . this will help you hope.
Excellent! Love it !!!
Not anymore, thank you, haha! Upvoted, followed and resteemed!
Thank you so much, it means a lot to me!!
I think our institution we call science(n) today resembles more of a religion than it does a beacon of "truth".
I was on a very similar train of thought when I wrote Is Science Just Another Religion: 21st century dogma, faith in science, and the cult of objectivity. I was linked to your article as supporting evidence for my claims!
Thank you for writing this. I think science (v) could benefit greatly from decoupling itself from science (n) and ridding itself from the hubris of objectivity... But, I don't think that is actually what you were alluding to.
The problem will remain as long as science (v) is manipulated to uphold the status quo, no different than a cultures dominant religions of old.
Hello thanks for the comment! I read your post too. I believe that the scientific field needs to grow or evolve. New generations must be more ethical and honest with science and with themselves. Challenge the bureaucracy and remind them of the mission of science. I'm optimistic and I think some improvements are already happening.
Couldn't agree more!!! Let's keep getting the message our there :) Seems like we're well on our way to decentralizing funding for science. This will be an essential step I believe.
Great post. If you had asked me 4 years ago I would have said that I wanted to complete a PhD and do research to follow my natural curiosity. However, it didn't take many weeks of thesis writing for me to see that I was not meant to produce papers. :P And with such a pressure to continuously produce, produce and produce, I would not really apply neither my talent nor my passions in practice.
So although data analysis is still part of what I do on a daily basis, I saw no other choice but to start creating things. It was a bit of a roller coaster going straight from University to attempt starting a StartUp company, and then soon seeing the door open to the sector I had always wanted to work in: Space!
Anyways I support your statements a lot. I even gave quite a series of talks on the topic of how radical breakthrough innovations have come when scientists of the past were given the creative freedom of pursuing the questions they most wanted to answer (From Newton to Maxwell). And that we should be cautious to force them to narrow their focus.
Having read your post I see that I should probably share that talk as a post here on steemit. Having just posted my introduction post to steemit yesterday I am looking to get more engaged on this platform. I will give you a follow, and hope we can have some fruitful dialogues on this cool new platform :)
Hello
Thanks for your comment! I agree with you when you say that the academy limits your creativity. It is interesting to find an entrepreneur. Science needs people with the courage to carry out their ideas!
Exactly! Over the last few years I have joined the Space sector now as an economist. I see the potential in having both a business and "builder" mindset, while at the same time being scientifically and technologically literate myself.
I saw the disconnect between how science benefits the world, and how decision-makers view science, and figured I would be that change which I wanted t osee in the world. As a scientifically literate economist working in the space sector, I can be a decision-maker for the projects, while fully understanding what the scinetists and engineers need to flourish.
Hope to see more people with an interdisciplinary mindset in the future, so that we can bridge the gap that currently exist :)
great point about inter disciplinary approaches, the tendency to know more and more about less and less is probably reaching a point of diminishing returns. It would be great if ideas from multiple disciplines can come together to find whole new approaches to solve problems...
Thank you for the kind comment @the-traveller !
There will always be a need for specialists. However, I think we are now in the age of the architect. As AI is taking on more and more simple tasks, the main question will seldom be if something can be built, but rather if something should be built. Therefore it will be the interdisciplinary architect who can see how the different pieces of the puzzle (pieces being different areas of expertise) can come together to produce new innovation.
Anyways I would love this discussion to go on and have you both in my network here. So I have followed you both and resteemed posts that I see overlap with my own topics of interest. Hope to engage more with you both down the line!
This is excellent. I am definitely bookmarking this one.
Thanks, it was your article on science under attack I totally agreed with your critisism of the system and I saw some people did not believe you.
That inspired me to make this post, I wanted my perspective to the discussion, it seems that a lot of people agree, I hope to explore this further and see if we can come up with solutions...
I still love science, and I believe in chemistry in particular to solve humanities biggest problems, but we'll need to do better than we are doing right now...
Yeap, they actually think I am anti-science but I wrote that because I specifically care about the field and I don't like seeing it being shredded by this recent culture.
Please see your post mentioned here: https://steemit.com/curation/@steemwizards/steemwizards-new-curation-trail-day-2
Thank you so much. You are very nice!! Will follow and check out your curation with interest!
I believe part of the issue is the "pay to play" situation that's been created and perpetuated by these institutions. These well established companies have deep pockets and therefore the ability to invest in powerful tools/instruments (not to mention the space to store and utilize them) which means if seasoned and budding scientists alike are interested in practicing their craft for some pay, they must do so within these institutions. Obviously, as your post states, these institutions will want a piece of the pie for providing these tools and their facilities. Thus the cycle will continue on until we've figured out a different paradigm for pushing forward science while better rewarding the people doing the work.
I agree totally with your statement about access to tools and instruments BUT very shortly we will see a big drop in prices thanks to technological progress. That might change the game completely and this monopoly might be broken up. Here is an example http://newatlas.com/home-crispr-gene-editing-kit/40362/
An excellent article and a really important issue. I think academia in Australia is a bit of a test case of the 'corporate university'. Here, we have a very cut-throat situation where people slice-and-dice their research into the smallest possible packages for publishing. Sure, it takes it's own kind of skill to achieve this. Nevertheless, in a system in which the ultimate underlying is dollars (let's face it, this is what lies beneath all the other 'surface' metrics), we will find abuse, falsification, plagiarism, and other unethical practices. Thanks for bringing up the issue.
I used to put all the blame of low-quality continuous publications on the researchers doing it. But I see that if you don't do it that way and you give too many details too soon, your ideas might be stolen. What a motivation!
This is so fucked up I wonder if anyone is doing real science anymore. In the end having a different day job and doing research in your own basement doesn't sound that bad anymore.
Unless you are hired by a tech company and get paid as an employee. I know you can do this in Scandinavian countries. You can do your postgraduate studies under a company, and then that company usually hires you. It seems like the only effective way to turn science into a profession. Work experience instead of academia.
Hmm, interesting! Go to do science in your basement !! I love it!!
Like these guys:
http://www.sciencefocus.com/feature/biohacking/welcome-gene-club-underground-genome-editing
this shows how fast things are changing...
Community laboratories, wow, this is a great idea! Imagine this in a more organized way. The founders could decide on some basic admission exams (basic science and safety procedures) and then people could pay a participating fee or somehow contribute to the lab and use the machines for their own research. They could organize a yearly public presentation of their research (something like Tedx) and try to find independent sponsors.
Exactly! We are on the same wavelength! I was thinking the same thing!
Maybe even find sponsors on steemit!
Great point, keep the good work. God bless you
Finally you are saying what a lot of people can't put into words. Great job, thanks for sharing. Love it
Thank you for writing this
I gained lot of knowledge
Awesome bro
I feel you so very much.
My department was merged with a few others and renamed life sciences (anthropology, biology, biochemistry, and zoology) a few years ago. At the 5 year mark there was an event where they showed metrics of every researcher and professor.
As some of you may know, anthropology covers a wide range of fields, but we focus mainly on biological anthropology and social anthropology. What a SURPRISE it was for the department's director that publications from the biological sciences (not just bio anthropology) outweighed the social ones in about four times to one.
But really take a look at it. As social anthropologists, what is it we need to produce science? We can't do research on a lab, the materials mostly used are people and their experiences, and often those same subjects are countries or even continents away! When compared to the word-count of each article, social publications are very often three times as large as the average article in biology. Not to mention these are pieces written by a single researcher who needed to spend a few months on the field to collect that data, as opposed to teams that collaborate on the same project and lab.
So you see how that difference in the number of publications comes to be? The old adage 'publish of perish' cannot be applied or used as a measure of dedication and competence to all scientists the same. I'm not saying this advocating for support, but the reality of science making in vastly different disciplines has to be taken into account.
Department heads seem to have enjoyed quantity over quality in assessing the quality of their researchers, but something has to change.