Slashdot Mirror
Why Are the Best and Brightest Not Flooding DARPA?
David W. White writes "Wired mag's Danger Room carried an article today that highlighted how desperate the US Military's DARPA has become in its attempts to bring in additional brain power. The tactics include filmed testimonials, folders and even playing cards all screaming join DARPA! Where are all the Einsteins who want to be on the cutting edge for the Government?"
I assume they're worried that they'll be the tragic victims of mysterious heart attacks.
intelligent and well educated people don't want to work for an organization that supports torture and oppression?
Even ignoring the hyperbole, maybe they don't want to work for a group who's expressed purpose is to kill people.
Do you want to have "worked for DARPA" on your CV? No company with half an active braincell in its CTO will want you, not knowing whether you've really "quitted".
Twice so if you ever plan to work outside of the US.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I'm not saying that people are stupid to be pro-military, just that there seems to be some correlation.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Yes, it's a government job, and the government gives pretty good benefits, but why work as a civil servant when you could get a higher-paying job in private industry doing work under contract for DARPA?
What the government does is terrorism to me.
Where are all the Einsteins who want to be on the cutting edge for the Government?
We have a government that for 8 years has tried to outsource as many of its functions as possible to private firms that pay much better than the government itself. Geez, let me guess where smart people are hiding...
Leave the gun, take the cannolis.
1) It's getting harder to believe we're the good guys.
2) The increasing view of government agencies as mismanaged and incapable (and the fact that we somewhat consistently elect candidates that loudly proclaim this outcome as immutable and inevitable), and public sector/military work as a refuge for the bureaucratic and dull.
3) Business politics are marginally easier to put up with than ideological politics and graft.
4) The private sector pays as well or better, and you probably don't have to relocate.
4a) Fewer of the best and brightest don't choose technology/research, because it's quite clear our society values lawyers and management more.
Tweet, tweet.
Who wouldn't be tripping over themselves trying to get a job with low pay, be saddled bureaucracy, receive no public recognition, have to pass periodic drug, credit and background checks for security clearance, get crappy benefits and with no stock options.
Sounds like a dream job.
Well, of course, DARPA doesn't do research. DARPA manages contracts with other organizations that do research.
The Einsteins most likely want to be in the organizations that actually do the research.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
We are all getting paid much better in the private sector.
Playing along with the "other country" theme, if you step into a graduate engineering department, you're likely to find a majority of non U.S. citizens comprising the graduate student workforce. These people are also ineligible for most U.S. Govt. fellowships and jobs that require a decent level of security clearance. Thus, DARPA might be having a tough time recruiting top-notch talent because most of the talent is ineligible to work for DARPA.
An old-timer with old-timey ideas.
As someone who works as a government contractor, my guess is it is because government bureaucracy stifles innovation. Most smart minds would rather work in academia where they get more freedoms, less restrictions, and are more easily able to surround themselves with likeminded individuals.
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GIT d? s: a-- C++++ UL++++ P++ L+++ E- W++ N o-- K- w--- O- M+ V PS+ P
- The government is obviously corrupt
- The government is obviously corrupt and working hand in hand with organizations out to destroy the internet.
- The government is obviously corrupt and working hard to make it easier for these same organizations to engage in a domestic terrorism campaign via lawsuits.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Many scientists have wised up to the fact their fun invention today maybe burning the skin off some poor kid tomorrow.
While they didn't do the actual killing, they do have other options available to them.
Blame Bush and 30 years of "Free Trade".
Like the MITer said, few people want to help with a war of aggression, torture and wiretap. The Bush administration has killed close to a million innocent people in Iraq, directly and by infrastructure damage. People die quickly when they don't have clean water, and few have that without the electric utilities and distribution network we bombed out but never rebuilt. All for control of oil.
We are also starting to run out of qualified young people because all of the engineering jobs have been sent to China and India. If you don't make things, you don't know things and the US has been making less and less over the last 30 years.
Trade with China and wars of aggression have a common cause: moral bankruptcy. The result is ruin.
As far as I can tell, from the article, it's DARPA lacking program managers that is the issue. A DARPA program manager allocates money, directs research within a program and decides if a particular group in the program is performing up to scratch. Sure, you have to be pretty well up on the state of the art in a fairly broad range of areas to succeed in doing this but, at the end of the day, you aren't actually doing any research. Working for DARPA is the scientific equivalent of middle management. Who gets into research to do that? This impression is gathered from the giant sample set of one DARPA program manager I've have the pleasure of working with, so I may have a skewed view on the whole operation.
Security Clearance.
We're rejecting and canning people because of even the most minor and often ancient of unrelated and innocuous financial transgressions and social relations -- even for the most insignificant of positions in government, contractors and even subcontractors thereof.
It's asinine. There are senators and congressmen with worse records and credit than contractors denied clearance to mop their floors.
The process is so intrusive and debasing that many people take one look at the paperwork and simply walk away.
I'd rather live in a cardboard box than help Bush kill brown people.
Along about the time my brother was getting his MS degree, he was recruited by the CIA for 'junior specialist in 'xxxxxx'
Our dad (wwii pilot) talked him out of it, saying "well...you can be the absolute best in that field, but you'll never be able to tell anyone about it."
Even ignoring the hyperbole, maybe they don't want to work for a group who's expressed purpose is to kill people.
This is nonsense, of course. In the past, plenty of highly intelligent people have contributed to warfare and advanced weaponry. Leornardo da Vinci comes to mind. The problem is has to do with what Thomas Kuhn wrote about in "The Structure of Scientific Revolution". DARPA relies on a filtering mechanism that employs academics. Academics are not open to new ideas that may upset their world view. New Einsteins would do just that, disrupt their world view. They therefore tend to avoid organizations like DARPA and prefer to go it alone. Eventually, new paradigms are accepted and science experiences a seismic explosion of creativity. DARPA would do well to encourage disruptive ideas but, given that the old guard is in charge, I am not holding my breath. We might have to wait for them to die off, as Max Planck once suggested.
It's not just the last 8 years. DARPA has long used external corporations to do research and development on projects while providing the management and funding.
ARPANET (which, as you likely knew, grew into the series of tubes we know today as the Internet) was built to connect DARPA sites, and was conceived and originally built by BBN (still one of the major DARPA contractors). One of the first sites connected to ARPANET was SRI, which is still pretty big in the DARPA contracting world.
It's not new.
I disagree and ask that you look there again. You will see that IBM is hiring in China, Mexico, Brazil, Russia, etc., etc., maybe 10% of the jobs are in the US.
I worked for IBM for 10 years - the best and the brightest rarely stay there because it doesn't take long to realise that layoffs at IBM have more to do with stock prices quarter to quarter and politics. IBM is as guilty as the govt and many other companies regarding outsourcing. The best and the brightest beat a path to the exit.
It once was a great company, sadly they have lost their way and essentially become a marketing company.
Even if you're a US citizen it's a PITA to get a serious clearance, which is why if you have one you can usually get some very good pay out of it.
~X~
~X~
No, its not nonsense. Noone said all of the best and the brightest refuse to do so, but a non-negligible portion do. I for instance, refuse to take any job that creates weapons, or from a company who's main purpose is to make weapons. I consider it equal to being a murderer.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
I was about to write that. The answer is in the same summary. "Where are all the Einsteins?", well, Einstein was an immigrant. However, these days, an immigrant is more some kind of threat to the US government. So where are all of them? Where they are accepted.
Technology mayors are not being occupied by US people, and therefore, foreign people is taking those opportunities. Unluckily, some people thinking that immigrants are just taking jobs from US citizens, are sending all the prepared foreign people back to their countries. So, all the money invested by the US companies, US government in research grants and education is flying out to other countries, where they can find jobs without passing through lotteries and security clearances.
US should look forward to a way of keeping the talent they invested on.
that an administration that aggressively fights and denounces science would suppress scientists' interest in public service?
It's not that I want to get paid better. I actually care almost nothing about that.
I just won't make weapons. And sorry AC, no salary would make me change my mind.
Please, flame on all, and tell me how many useful technologies are spun off from DARPA research everyday. And, come to think of it, how many weapons are created out of 'off-label' uses of otherwise innocuous. I guess, for me, it's principle.
I wonder if studies exist of correlations between higher education and pacifism...
[/sarcasm]
A colleague of mine got $50 million from DARPA to do something...less than feasible. His institution put up a new building with it, which is the norm.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
Sorry, what do weapons have to do with scientific revolutions?
Wernher von Braun and J. Robert Oppenheimer would be my examples of weapons scientists, but scientists can be pacifists, too. Joseph Rotblat quit the Manhattan project, and later received a Nobel for his efforts to encourage disarmament. Linus Pauling had a change of heart after WWII and spoke out against nuclear testing, among other things. And I think that if you talk to people today, many will express reservations about working for the military-industrial complex.
Regarding world views, Einstein had the "right" world view for the theories of relativity. However, his world view could not accommodate quantum mechanics. Despite facilitating a paradigm shift in one area of theory, Einstein was unable to accept a different shift in a different area.
I disagree that "academics are not open to new ideas". The problem these days is that there are very few "disruptive" ideas. There are few new theories worth exploring; we are mostly nailing down the outer reaches of existing ones, and discovering that what we have got works extremely well. Every scientist wants to push the envelope. After all, scientists are rewarded with Nobel prizes for radically shifting our understanding of nature.
We live in a post-Kuhn era, where the phrase "paradigm shift" is cliché. Scientists are well acquainted with his ideas, whether explicitly or implicitly. The last thing we need is a bunch of people telling us that we're locked into our paradigms, because it's simply not true. When the LHC starts up, everyone is hoping that new physics will be found, because accumulating more data to reinforce existing theories is not terribly exciting.
Violate the law that they are sworn to protect perhaps?
The constitution is supposed to protect people from government abuse but right now it is getting trampled and shown very little respect.
Personally I think it's a sad day when we have to give up our high ground because our enemy is so strong that our principles will prevent us from winning the day.
I find it strange how we act like that's the case even though the "enemy" is extraordinarily weak.
Just because they do it, is not a reason for us to do it.
DARPA was once filled with bright scientists and engineers with new ideas. These people were trained by - that's right - the academy. The academy isn't full of a bunch of stodgy old fools who aren't able to keep up with change or adapt to new data or ideas. The academy of today is the same one that has produced many great minds of the past such as Einstein, Turing, and Planck - as well as many great minds of the modern era like Hawking, Prusiner (discovered prions - quite ground breaking) and Blackburn (she co-discovered telomerase). The academy is turning out good people as it always has and DARPA isn't making any mistakes by restricting their searches to only those people who have been properly trained as scientists in the academy. Anyone who says otherwise probably has very little idea what they are talking about.
The reason that DARPA isn't pulling in talent the way they once did is because the private sector is simply more lucrative and more exciting right now. That, and the fact that DARPA doesn't have quite the same prestige today that it did during, for instance, the cold war. These simple explanations might not sound as revolutionary and insightful as someone taking it upon themselves to decry the academy for its perceived inflexibility and unadaptability, but they are far more realistic and down to earth.
Yes, but the perceived moral superiority of one's state has a lot to do with people's willingness to support it. I would most happily have applied my talents to supporting US military technology efforts during WWII or even the cold war, when the US really did appear to be under existential threat.
But in today's world, it looks to many of us more like our government has been picking wars they wanted to have and seeking justification afterwards
Recent US military antics have leveraged the population's fear of from an attack that killed 3000 people to initiate a war with an unrelated country that has now resulted in the death of nearly a million people
I know there are people who feel differently than I about these events - but many also feel the same or similarly. I am no pacifist, but I feel like my current government uses kindergarten logic internationally in ways that cost millions of human lives.
That alone is plenty to keep me out of DARPA, and I suspect it is for many others as well.
If there were a real external threat, I'd be supporting my nation's efforts to fight it as would any other good patriot. Right now, the greatest threat is from within.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
You would think so but not everyone gets the big bucks just because they have a clearance. In the environment I work in it depends on which contractor you work for and which contract you are on too which can dictate whether you get mid-level or senior pay.
this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom. -- Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
A lot of people don't want to work for DARPA because it means living in or around Arlington, Virginia. (Source: http://www.darpa.gov/hrd/ )
My friends aren't there. My family isn't there. It would take a shit ton of money for me to be able to financially justify relocating there, which would involve my wife needing to quit her job to come with, as well as needing to sell my house in a shitty market for selling houses.
Sorry, but if you have only one location and you want the best and the brightest, you have to be willing to offer stupid amounts of money to make sure it's financially viable for all the best and the brightest. I think it'd be cool as hell to work on a lot of the projects I've seen come out of DARPA, but not enough to enter poverty (and more, to ask my family to enter poverty) to do it.
I'm gonna go ahead and say that discrimination based on, you know, race is a better example of "racism". Discrimination based on national origin is called "nationalism". Note the common root words in both cases. Actually it's not even that. I'm not a US citizen and hence I don't have a right to be in the US. The US isn't being racist if it decides not to let me in. Just like China or Japan, or Chad wouldn't be racist in deciding not to let me in. I'm not from those countries and so I don't have a right to go to them.
If a US employer decides to hire someone from the US instead of me, that's also not racist. Maybe they want to avoid all the paperwork and expense of getting me a work permit. Or maybe they want to hire someone that can come in for an interview on short notice. No one would say that a California company was being regionalist in deciding to hire a local rather than someone from New York.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
Point taken. And I do not mean in any way to denigrate the talents and abilities of these folks. What upsets me is the constant demands for higher visa quotas because the execs say that we don't have the talent here. That our colleges aren't very good and on and on. If they were to be honest they would simply say, there are plenty of talented well educated people here already but we choose to hire from outside of the country so that we can pay lower wages.
In the end we find that more and more of these foreign hires go back to their own countries bringing with them the knowledge and experience gained here at lower wages. Lower because our local corporations care not one whit for the future of this country, only that they hit their quarterly marks. I don't blame the foreign workers, I would do exactly as they do. At the end we as a country have underemployed, discouraged, talented and yes even brilliant engineers and scientist who can no longer compete in the marketplace becasue they were never given the opportunity to sharpen their skills in a real world environment.
After all there is a lot of private sector jobs that pay well, provide a good working environment and leave you feeling good about the work you are doing. If you of course prefer to work for the government and contribute to society as a whole (reduced pay but better job security and contributing to the society you are a part of), there is always the medical and education sectors (hey, we might all pick on government workers for fun but it mostly isn't true and mass media has jumped on the bandwagon because it has been paid to by extremely corrupt private corporations, who want to provide you with absolutely no service and charge ten times as much as the government would ever have).
Perhaps various governments might have to figure out a way to clearly separate defensive, non-aggresive technologies and companies from death at a profit companies, so they can attract better people for defence and as for offence well I'm sure there are enough jock strap wanna be computer drones to pick from, the typing monkeys thing, get enough of them and some sort of code will come out just look at M$ Vista for example ;).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Think about it. By NOT working for them you've possibly denied them the breakthrough in weapons researc hthat would have
A) Created a completly non-lethal but entirely effective weapon with no lasting side effects B) Created a weapon of mass destruction so powerful it would prevent any conflict as long as you are its sole possessor.
Therefore, you aare responsible for all the deaths that WILL occur resulting from your inaction on weapons reasearch.
Take this with a cubic meter of salt.
I never spellcheck and I freely admit it. Save your karma for more worthwhile "lol erorrs" replies
Not being American, I probably wouldn't qualify anyway, but here's my guess:
1) The first letter in DARPA stands for "defense"
Most serious scientists want to create and explore, not destroy. Does NASA have problems hiring? THAT would be news. Actually they probably do have problems, as does anyone trying to get "real" scientists these days. I'd actually expect DARPA to be the last place to "dry up" because it won't get an enormous percentage of otherwise-eligible scientists apply.
2) Money.
Government agencies tend not to pay anywhere near market rates and if they do, they certainly don't keep up with those rates after a few years.
3)
I'm afraid this item is classified information and you may never, ever discuss it with anyone, ever.
4) Freedom.
Work for the government for a pittance to develop something that will then be claimed as a government invention, or work for a serious research place where you will get some credit and be able to discuss your ideas with others (that is, basically, what science is all about). You'll be able to research just about anything you want, in all kinds of esoteric fields, rather than being forced back to "make me something that'll kill more people", for instance. You'll (hopefully) be able to do it without a massive committee of people with their own agenda pushing you into areas you have little interest in.
Camping on quad since 1996.
HA! That's what you think. Guess who gets rotated in and out ? People who know each other. Darpa is notorious for being an old boys network. Rotation doesn't fix the problem.
It's silly to claim the best scientists and engineers either were or were not born here. What this guy is reacting to is pretty clearly the fairly obvious thing: many of the best scientists in the world came here to do their works. They got the high profile exposure; the peak was certainly around WWII, when we had an influx of German scientists coming over en masse.
So sure, not every scientist or engineer in this country is "world class"... but most imports... yeah, they are, pretty much by definiton. They come here to work, in a free environment, with native-grown examples cut from the same cloth.
And I think, given the more recent state of governmental support, this flux of great engineers and scientists is waning. As an engineer(I'm not claiming the "great" title), I want to get my work done. If I have a great idea that won't play at my current employer, I'll move to someone who would embrace it... no problem. Under the right circumstances, same goes with the country... a regieme restricting free thought could make plenty of projects fail.
And sadly, we've been under just such a regieme these last 7+ years... politics should NEVER have veto power over science, and yet, the Bush Administration has routinely had political drioids editing scientific papers. So there's at least some validity to the claim that we simply GAVE UP our former crown as "the world's center of technology".
-Dave Haynie