Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Publish Letter Saying, "We Need More Scientific Mavericks"
coondoggie (973519) writes "Gotta love this letter published in the guardian.com this week. It comes from a number of scientists throughout the world who are obviously frustrated with the barriers being thrown up around them — financial, antiquated procedures and techniques to name a few — and would like to see changes. When you speak of scientific mavericks, you might look directly at Improbable Research's annual Ig Nobel awards which recognize the arguably leading edge of maverick scientific work."
If "scientists" want more maverick's in science...then they need to **hire** and **promote** more mavericks...then write and *publish* papers about their theories
Right now, anyone who doesn't toe the institutional line will get put with the Graduate Advisor who is either A) insane or B) can't speak English and only was hired to get more full-tuition-paying foreign students
If you want the pedigree you have to 'drink the kool-aide' of whatever academic is above you
Don't get me wrong, TFA is a good start, but they need to do alot more than this to make academia right again
Thank you Dave Raggett
TFA claims 25% success rate for grant applications which hasn't been true in a long time. Last I heard the NIH claimed 18%, which is bullshit, it's not anywhere near that good either. Some fields don't hit 10% funding rates.
I'd love it if the government threw an extra 10-50 bil into researching diseases, working on stem cells.
I'd love if if they raised NASA's budget.
The only reason there's STEM problems is that the government is too busy paying off themselves: the corporations and senators.
Now would be the perfect time in our jobless economy. There's *TONS* of talented folk who don't even get a chance to work. These are the minds that could find the cures for diseases, or invent new materials for the future.
God spoke to me
Well maybe we should start funding more basic research or off the main path ideas.
by being a maverick in science?
Face it, the scientific establishment has ruined science.
This is a lot of hand-wringing over a situation these guys created.
We have a system created by and for established academics. These guys have displaced both the great individual scientists of the past (think Feynman), but also the great scientific managers (think Oppenheimer). In combining these two roles, they have created hierarchies capable of continuous and low risk scientific advancement. Think about how steady and predictable scientific advancement is these days. This is an amazing and great achievement, but it also sucks the spirit and excitement out of being a scientist. And along the way certain fields just have to wait.
So, ok, let's talk about what happens if we want to fix this.
The main thing that needs to be reversed is to restore the separation of management and science. Scientists who want to manage large groups get to be management. They have to be able to content themselves with just being the grant writer, and not being in charge of the science, marketing, data presentation and every aspect of their colleague's career development. Scientists who don't want to be management have to be ok with allowing other people to be in charge. Running your own group can't be all of our goals. Professors need to get back to doing the actual work that got them their position.
So ... let's say you're on a funding panel, with 120 grant proposals in front of you, and you have to recommend twenty of them as top priorities for funding. The rest of them are going to go without, because that's all the money you have to allocate. Thirty of those proposals are from established, productive researchers with track records of transformative discoveries. Another thirty are from promising young researchers with first-rate pedigrees looking for their first grants to launch careers that may span decades. Thirty are from mediocre old guys nearing retirement who have been in the funding pipeline forever, and have been getting grants mostly by inertia. Thirty are semi-coherent ravings from people who display very little comprehension of the existing literature or of the basic parameters of the field.
Now find the "mavericks". You have to have a ranked list by tomorrow afternoon.
The search algorithm and data format matter more than the low latencies gained from ring0. There's a reason large databases don't use flat text files.
Your alternative might work better technologically, especially once the number of entries grows significantly, but it is not simpler than a text file used as a blacklist. Also, centrally maintained lists are open to political and economic attacks that might neuter their ability to do the intended job.
A madman's ravings are absurd in relation to the situation in which he finds himself, but not in relation to his madness.
"When you speak of scientific mavericks, you might look directly at Improbable Research's annual Ig Nobel awards which recognize the arguably leading edge of maverick scientific work."
What we need is more people like Richard Feynman who are willing to tell it like it is, and press on with simple powerful stuff.
Seriously. Hardware these days is awesome and cheap. Any language you could want is freely available. Tools are mighty. The entry barriers to CompSci research have never been lower. If you are truly gifted, then by all means hack away.
Look at AI (a broad topic, but please keep reading). I was at a conference where they said over half the published research is an AI topic and it has been this way for decades. What is the result of all this brainpower? Clearly the research institutions are not bringing the game. I believe someone working in their bedroom has as much chance of discovering a breakthrough as a funded researcher.
Perhaps grant committees should give way to something like kick starter...
Unfortunately no one wants to invest in anything as we (as a society) have become too risk averse. I blame the lawyers and their cabal for this one. How do we get out of this? By providing a means to fund risk.
Goes something like this... you write up a business proposal for something you would like to do. It could be for an invention, basic, applied or theoretical research. The Gov't provides you with a research grant with a small string... they get a percentage of the take (or your income) for 10 years or until the original grant is paid back (whichever is first). You can still hold the patents and copyrights - the Gov't just gets their cut until they are paid back.
Maximum grant 100K / person / year. Max grants 3 years (they can be consecutive) out of 10. You cannot apply for a second block (3-years) of grants until the first one is paid back.
You can create an consortium to pool resources if you'd like.
For an invention - 25%. Applied - 20%, basic 15%, theoretical - 10%. Reward those with the greatest risk with the least 'take'
For example, take out 100K for an invention - you either pay back 25K over 10 years you pay back the whole 100K earlier to get you to 100% profits. If the things a winner - we get our money back faster. If it's a dud - well...
A billion dollars would fund 10,000 such endeavors! That's a lot of monkeys banging out Shakespeare and a heck of a lot better ROI than bailing out the banks.
Catches:
All research, design, inventions, raw data, etc. must be openly published. You can own the copyright to the material and/or patents on the invention - but you have to publish it or make it available in some manner.
Must be a US Citizen of voting age to apply.
No requirements about degrees, education, etc. I've see a lot of farmers that knew more about building stuff than many engineers I've come across.
No limits regarding what you produce - except it cannot be illegal. Produce a film, write a book, invent a new firearm, electronic gadget or build a better mousetrap.
Going along with this - we need to clean house in the USPTO and get the Supreme Court to finally agree that continually extending copyright is the equivalent of making it in perpetuity.
Just a thought
http://edge.org/conversation/h...
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
AGM 65 maverick guided missiles?
I think the marines and navy can also use them, and you can put them on a AH64 apache for the army.
James Garner was not available to comment
"A fool makes things bigger + more complex: It takes a touch of genius & a lot of courage to move in the opposite direction." - Einstein
I think it was E.F Schumacher that wrote that.
BTW, almost none of the famous Einstein "quotes" were actually said by Einstein.
When was US science great?
1920's? 1930's? 1950's? 1960's?
Over every decade stories can be found to show amazing advancements by skilled US scientists working alone or as part of their employment.
You also see great slowness, monopolies, cartels, red tape, lack of basic funding stopping the advancement on evolutionary or revolutionary ideas or just not keeping up.
Retooling was no fun and the contracts where politically safe.
From early radar, jet engines, guidance systems, computing, cryptography, heavy engineering the US was often playing catch up to under funded experts in other countries or new ideas within the USA.
The massive jump seems to have been 1940's 50's funding of science and education with an influx of German 'experts' and other experts post WW2. That allowed the US to jump ahead and keep the skills going thanks to very well educated later generations. Constant educational testing guided wealthy and poor college scholarships students to the military industrial complex public and private mil,gov sector opportunities.
A huge supply of US raw material, smart US staff, support of new ideas and never ending US contracts or gov funding. Science was very safe and US education was well looked after.
The propaganda value of the US been open for diverse arts, all science and religion was also well presented into the early 1990's.
The magic of jobs for life and never ending science boondoggles stops when the private sectors finds it can use a 100% US front company with a long just in time supply line to other cheap parts of the world. Same end price and maintenance contract, lower production costs. The product is still the same, the US design is secure but fewer costly US jobs and less need for funding for science at the mid and low end.
Over generations the lack of gov funding finally becomes apparent to the wider US science community.
The science is now in the magic of gov paper work to ensure a 100% US front company gets the next contract, not in the actual made in the USA part.
As long as the skill set exists to design and work on any given mil product over its life is ensured, everything else science related can be slowly defunded.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
The Small Business Innovative Research program is pretty close to what you've described..
100k awards for Phase 1
1M for Phase 2
You get to keep the IP, etc.
hey AC...thnx for the comment...I lol'ed
yeah my punctuation sucks...but grammar nazi's suck more...
you however kept a lighthearted tone which makes it at least neutral if not constructive...
so, in reward for your only *mildly* annoying grammar-nazi-ness....I will endeavor to fix my possessive punctuation from now on
Thank you Dave Raggett
right on...good for you w/ your PhD program...I wish you all the best!
I understand that, say, in a happy hour gathering of grad students + recent PhD's you could fire off the comment, 'The only institutional line that matters is, "Bring in grant money!".' and the whole group would bellow in agreement.
I also agree...however if we're talking about a *fix* for this problem, you have to stop thinking like a student.
That "grant money"...it doesn't go to you...it goes to **your program** or **a specific professor** who has to do reems of paperwork to justify the grant...then of course after a fixed ammount of time, the grant needs to be renewed.
That means that if you want in on that grant, you have to "drink the kool-aide"
Now, **your** program may not operate like that, but that's this is the status quo. I got my MS in Information & Communication Science at a state school, did paid research work for a prof not in my department while there (i'm an SPSS jedi), and have worked as an adjunct at Washington State University in the CS program. I am starting my own biz now. I'm ABD so my goal is to launch this biz then go finish mine.
Thank you Dave Raggett
surely not.
I think we're talking past each other...I'm responding to TFA's contextualization of the problem and their idea of how to "fix" it...the problem of a lack of "mavericks"
about how we have "too many PhD's"...to me that just sounds ridiculous, but I know what you mean at the same time.
the work exists...all of academia gets twisted b/c of how it interacts with the private sector which has caused a systemic problem that **keeps research from getting funded**
Thank you Dave Raggett
The average scientist with a Ph.D. still working under NIH or NSF funding makes $40000 a year as a post doc and $50000 as a staff scientist. That is if you are lucky enough to land a job. I've personally seen maybe 80% of my fellow Ph.D. graduates leave research all together because they can make more money in construction. Good luck with that faculty position. I've got more than 30 authored publications and no prospects because the competition requires a publication in journals like nature or science just to get noticed for faculty recruitment. With funding levels at current levels and the number of people applying for grants, there is nearly enough to maintain the current group of researchers. Industry you ask? I talk with small startups that can't find venture capitol anymore because people are worried about healthcare? yeah right. The current culture is not to invest in long term risk that is basic research. But instead look for the quick turn around or the sure thing or the latest fad (big data?). If these guys want mavericks.... show me the money!
I believe Confucius has a similar problem.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
A few years back a similar letter was published by theoretical computer scientists decrying the lack of innovation. They went as far as to create a special conference for maverick new theory. It is called Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science and it has been running for five years and if you look at the accepted papers they look no different than those of a regular conference. At the end of the day, when confronted with a risky, novel idea that might or might not pan out and a solid, no-surprises-there advance, the reviewers consistently side with the safe choice and reject the true innovation.
So they can talk all they want about maverick scientists, when push comes to shove the grant review panels, the journal editors, the hiring committees always fall back on the safe choices.
Scientists Publish Letter Saying, "We Need More Scientific Mavericks"
I hope that one lone scientist publishes a response saying "we don't".....
"Valuing knowledge, we preposterize the idea and say everybody shall produce written research in order to live, and it shall be decreed a knowledge explosion."
Damn right. We need more mavericks and less pen-pushers!
Scientists Publish Letter Saying
Aww.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Google's 80/20 was for mavericks, but now it's gone. Why is that?
Vaya con huevos, my darling.
I'll bite. Are you considering wireless radiation as the cause of "metabolic syndrome"?
And more on topic:
The perpetual motion machine of modern physics is a great provider for those who get paid to speculate.
I come here for the love
I am a professor who mentors PhD students on projects supported by NIH grants. I totally disagree with the assessment of needing to drink the kool-aid to get in on a grant. Most of the PIs (professors that wrote the grant) that I know really do not want a PhD student to come in an be a "parrot" by simply repeating everything the PI says and thinks. The PI gets very little out of this, and it advances a project to a much lesser degree than a student who can make an intellectual contribution. The problem with lack of support for Maverick-type people is that the granting agencies have become quite risk averse, which makes absolutely no sense in science. As a result, I believe te proportion of funding going to translational research focused on an application is too great and funding to basic science is too small.
So can we expect more funding for people doubting Global Warming, then?
Oh wait, no, that's DOGMA...we don't want 'mavericks' that question sacred cows. We want mavericks that challenge the Establishment in acceptable ways...
-Styopa
Make the scientific literature available to all. The mavericks will emerge without any grant support.
Maverick's don't get hired.
When they do, it's because their ideas maybe aren't so maverick-ish.
Maverick's work at MacDo's to make ends meet, which means they must do research on their own time and dime.
Stupid suggestion by the scientists. Basically egging others to 'take one for the team' ... before they're allowed on the team.
"Consensus" in science is _always_ a political construct.
"almost none of the famous Einstein "quotes" were actually said by Einstein."
--Mark Twain
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Feynman was a bit of a maverick; in somes ways a cultivated one. And at times -- Manhatten and the Challenger Inquiry -- a very useful one.
But as a scientists Feynman was anything but a Maverick. His work was entirely mainstream, even his most original and innovative work, as theoretical physics was at the time in a radical phase. Personally Feynman may have been somewhat goofy. Professional he was very creative. But he was not a Maverick who ever seriously went against mainstream opinon; even his objections to String Theory were muted.
The closest scientists who would qualify as Mavericks were the Quantum pioneers of the 1920s, Einstein with relativity, and possibly Micheal Faraday. You could also go back to Newton and Gelileo, but remember, for every one of these there are fifty Velikovsky's.
May the Maths Be with you!
Fine line between Maverick and Crackpot. And for most of us it's really difficult to tell the difference. You really have to be committed to stand up as a Maverick!
no...the problem is that people like YOU are **risk averse**
you can't blame the granting agencies for decisions you make...I get your point RE: translational vs theory is off-kilter, but that's not b/c of "mavericks" it's b/c corporations fund research at universities that is intended to increase their profits + build equity.
Stop blame-shifting and start practicing what you preach! If you get NIH grants then people *will listen to you*
START TODAY....DO IT NOW...
yes...I mean it...start today Mr. PhD mentor!!!!
today your task is to find an opportunity to encourage, promote, edify a "maverick" student that will change this cycle...then continue every day...write papers, publish and make an affirmative effort to include "mavericks"....
***tell your professor friends at your little dinner parties about your change in attitude***
Thank you Dave Raggett
You have no idea what decisions I have made. I certainly have not decided to cash in by taking corporate funded research, to increase profits as you somehow concocted. I, and most of my colleagues, do basic research funded by NIH. We care about this a lot. I have worked very hard, dedicated my life to my work. I do it NOT for money, which should be obvious if you look at average faculty salaries.
In the last decade or so there has been a shift in focus away from basic research and toward applied or "translational" research. This switch, made by the NIH, in response to congress critters demand for so-called deliverables, changes the way in which research is done. It has shifted away from basic (i.e. more risk).
Your "blame-shifting" argument is stupid. How do you propose one does the basic research if it does not get funded?.
This whole comment thread is about **students**...the future "mavericks" that people like you purposefully alienate.
You are a PhD supervising professor...you're **exactly** the person who needs to **change** and be more open to promoting "mavericks"
Promoting & encouraging "mavericks" has **absolutely notion to do** with you getting NiH grants.
Nothing.
You tried to make some kind of point about how if you took TFA & my advice and actually, **proactively** advocated for "mavericks" that it would affect your NiH grants somehow...which is a total lie.
You're guilty of doing what TFA points out & you're trying to justify your behavior.
Just *stop it*...accept that you're part of the problem and **change**
Start helping "mavericks" get their ideas into the research or just **go away**
Thank you Dave Raggett
This comment thread is absolutely about **students** because I started it.
Read my response that started this thread....go ahead...I'll wait...
This is about **me** a former professor and ABD, telling **you** a current professor who supervises PhD's to **stop holding back people who are "mavericks" in your work, in all ways**
Stop alienating and marginalizing people with challenging ideas.
Stop forcing your students to "drink the kool-aid"
Stop making excuses and change NOW
Thank you Dave Raggett
Here's when you entered the discussion,
Then you proceeded to say how **your** program isn't like the programs in TFA
The point of contention, which you have dropped b/c you're proven wrong, is that
That's the disagreement.
I showed you to be a typical, self-deluded, narcissistic, ivory tower jerk-off who takes advantage of his student's desperation at getting a career.
YOU are part of the problem and you keep trying to change the subject.
Stop blaming things like the "grant process" for how ***you treat your students and other PhD's***
Either start promoting, encouraging, helping, and including "mavericks" or RETIRE AND GO AWAY
Thank you Dave Raggett
And the focus on that.
Because, like, "scientists" nowadays are really just over specialized technicians.
Once upon a time a scientist could build his own lab equipment, which meant he actually comprehended what the equipment he used was and did and exactly how it functioned, probably including the history of it's development.
The solution isn't to keep doing the same thing (groveling for grant money) that causes stagnation. That's the definition of insanity.
If you're going to make that argument, then you've plainly never spent more than a few femtoseconds reading IR's documents. They're all about the strangenesses of normal science - in their own words, research that first makes you laugh then makes you think.
They're not about "scientific mavericks", whatever they are,
You'll note that there's at least one holder of both a Nobel and an Ignobel Prize. He didn't get either for being a maverick, but for pursuing interesting research avenues.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Update:
need to make a slight revision of the theory. After consulting a better map I see that The Igari-Vampi track would actually put it over Mali not off the coast of perth. Instead the revision is that the system was off autopilot and functioning in stable flight dead reckoning. the prevailing winds pushed it off that course towards australia. It's in the water on the last ping arc somewhere 4 hours from perth.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.