dixonmassey
09-11-04, 03:22 AM
There are so many hopes on the saving power of science these days that I want to laugh. Why? Well, cause I work there and I know more or less how things work. I know what is the main product of the scientific machine these days (Ans: BS).
The amount of the useful innovations (especially in fundamental sciences) is drying up. Hype, hard "used car" sale techniques, old boys network, fraud, deliberate futility, etc. fill the gap left by the "real stuff". I want to vomit when I hear a word "nano". "Nano boom" is the most disgraceful hype frenzy science has ever seen. Me (modest worm) know several science crooks successfully milking nano cow. People are putting word nano in every hole because that is where funding is. Transforming science into mass bread winning profession did more harm than good to the progress (in the long run).
Here is my list of "why's" the modern science sucks and will suck more in the future.
1) Salemanship is #1 skill "successful" scientist MUST have. If you are not a naturally born salesman, stay away from science careers. Your chances to succeed are close to zero independently of everything else you have.
2) Successful modern scientist should be a narrow minded zombie pecking his topic 24/7 until funding is there. Otherwise, somebody else, pecking the very same topic, will get funded. Being a science zombie is a good thing on one side (24*7>>8*5). On the other side, being a zombie does not play well with creativity. To be truly creative person one must be as well rounded as he can. You never know where that "spark" in your brain will come from. Certainly, it rarely comes from the continuous pecking at the same spot.
You'll be amazed to know what simple/elementary things renown scientists with 20 something years of experience do NOT know.
3) Modern science is a bullshit factory. Amount of papers, information is amazing BUT most of it is repeating itself BS. Why? Cause, scientists must publish to survive, keep his job, get funded in the future. Sure, one can publish a lot by doing superb cutting edge research every other week. But science is not a manufacturing plant. So, folks have chosen simpler ways to boost their paper counts. #1 trick is to publish as many papers as one can based on a single modest result, or NO significant results whatsoever. Fraud, comes the second. "Massaging/forging data" sounds disgusting? Well, it doesn't if you want to keep your paycheck coming.
4) Competing for funding. Sounds as a very free market approach, which should work well in science. Well, not if >70% of work time MUST be spent on the writing multiple proposals, reports, BS papers to show that funding $ were well spent. Having the most original idea does not guarantee a funding at all. Why? Cause, clerks in funding offices judge merits of your proposal based on the names of authors and research institutions they work at. Peer reviewer may kill your proposal just to "steal" ideas. In two words, names of authors of a proposal, names of institutions they work at DO count; Content of a proposal counts for less. Reseach tzars with dozens of low paid slaves in labs will always win funding competition. Why? Cause, tzar may forget about doing everything else (including research) and write proposals, shake hands, manage slaves and lab, etc. Less blessed in the slave department scientists (who actually do some science themselves) have no chances to compete with tzars for funding independently of the merits of their research.
5) You'll say scientists have freedom of what to study. I'll say hell NO. Government clerks, etc. decide indirectly what scientists will study by allocating $. Academic freedom is largerly fiction. Academic prostitution is a more precise word to describe things. Scientists follow hype directions as a flock of sheep follow a leader goat to a buthcery, trampling everything in their way. Secondly, mainstream interpretation of results is encouraged. Indirect or direct critique of somebody's else work is discouraged (you never know who'll review your proposal next). So, if you want to keep funding $ coming, you better keep your head on the average mainstream level (if you do not have big name support).
6) Oversaturation of science labor market. Fresh Ph.D.s in postdoc spots are treated/paid as sh*t. It's cheaper (no obligations too) to hire a postdoc slave than a technician with HS education. Results are straightforward: fresh Ph.D.s are used mostly for brain numbing jobs (technicians should do). When I worked in a National Lab, I have observed up close and personal a record set by a 60K/year technician who did NOTHING for 3 straight weeks, while 4 times cheaper (counting overhead) Ph.D. slaves of science did all the work he's supposed to do. Such a sweatshop system discourages well rounded folks, which have interests beyond a narrow topic they work on, from pursuing science careers. Some (not all) determined science "zombies" survive sweat shop system by sacrificing larger portion of their best years to "pecking". Creative potential of the science work force diminishes.
The news about abysmal job prospects in sciences is spread more or less well. As a result, majority of the best and brightest (even from poor countries) try to avoid science careers.
7) Even successful science "zombies" start their independent careers well into their 30th (on the average). Their best (from new idea generation standpoint) years were sacrificed to save a few bucks for their $ conscious supervisors by doing brain numbing work instead of technicians, etc. What a waste of the human potential/life modern science machine is.
The amount of the useful innovations (especially in fundamental sciences) is drying up. Hype, hard "used car" sale techniques, old boys network, fraud, deliberate futility, etc. fill the gap left by the "real stuff". I want to vomit when I hear a word "nano". "Nano boom" is the most disgraceful hype frenzy science has ever seen. Me (modest worm) know several science crooks successfully milking nano cow. People are putting word nano in every hole because that is where funding is. Transforming science into mass bread winning profession did more harm than good to the progress (in the long run).
Here is my list of "why's" the modern science sucks and will suck more in the future.
1) Salemanship is #1 skill "successful" scientist MUST have. If you are not a naturally born salesman, stay away from science careers. Your chances to succeed are close to zero independently of everything else you have.
2) Successful modern scientist should be a narrow minded zombie pecking his topic 24/7 until funding is there. Otherwise, somebody else, pecking the very same topic, will get funded. Being a science zombie is a good thing on one side (24*7>>8*5). On the other side, being a zombie does not play well with creativity. To be truly creative person one must be as well rounded as he can. You never know where that "spark" in your brain will come from. Certainly, it rarely comes from the continuous pecking at the same spot.
You'll be amazed to know what simple/elementary things renown scientists with 20 something years of experience do NOT know.
3) Modern science is a bullshit factory. Amount of papers, information is amazing BUT most of it is repeating itself BS. Why? Cause, scientists must publish to survive, keep his job, get funded in the future. Sure, one can publish a lot by doing superb cutting edge research every other week. But science is not a manufacturing plant. So, folks have chosen simpler ways to boost their paper counts. #1 trick is to publish as many papers as one can based on a single modest result, or NO significant results whatsoever. Fraud, comes the second. "Massaging/forging data" sounds disgusting? Well, it doesn't if you want to keep your paycheck coming.
4) Competing for funding. Sounds as a very free market approach, which should work well in science. Well, not if >70% of work time MUST be spent on the writing multiple proposals, reports, BS papers to show that funding $ were well spent. Having the most original idea does not guarantee a funding at all. Why? Cause, clerks in funding offices judge merits of your proposal based on the names of authors and research institutions they work at. Peer reviewer may kill your proposal just to "steal" ideas. In two words, names of authors of a proposal, names of institutions they work at DO count; Content of a proposal counts for less. Reseach tzars with dozens of low paid slaves in labs will always win funding competition. Why? Cause, tzar may forget about doing everything else (including research) and write proposals, shake hands, manage slaves and lab, etc. Less blessed in the slave department scientists (who actually do some science themselves) have no chances to compete with tzars for funding independently of the merits of their research.
5) You'll say scientists have freedom of what to study. I'll say hell NO. Government clerks, etc. decide indirectly what scientists will study by allocating $. Academic freedom is largerly fiction. Academic prostitution is a more precise word to describe things. Scientists follow hype directions as a flock of sheep follow a leader goat to a buthcery, trampling everything in their way. Secondly, mainstream interpretation of results is encouraged. Indirect or direct critique of somebody's else work is discouraged (you never know who'll review your proposal next). So, if you want to keep funding $ coming, you better keep your head on the average mainstream level (if you do not have big name support).
6) Oversaturation of science labor market. Fresh Ph.D.s in postdoc spots are treated/paid as sh*t. It's cheaper (no obligations too) to hire a postdoc slave than a technician with HS education. Results are straightforward: fresh Ph.D.s are used mostly for brain numbing jobs (technicians should do). When I worked in a National Lab, I have observed up close and personal a record set by a 60K/year technician who did NOTHING for 3 straight weeks, while 4 times cheaper (counting overhead) Ph.D. slaves of science did all the work he's supposed to do. Such a sweatshop system discourages well rounded folks, which have interests beyond a narrow topic they work on, from pursuing science careers. Some (not all) determined science "zombies" survive sweat shop system by sacrificing larger portion of their best years to "pecking". Creative potential of the science work force diminishes.
The news about abysmal job prospects in sciences is spread more or less well. As a result, majority of the best and brightest (even from poor countries) try to avoid science careers.
7) Even successful science "zombies" start their independent careers well into their 30th (on the average). Their best (from new idea generation standpoint) years were sacrificed to save a few bucks for their $ conscious supervisors by doing brain numbing work instead of technicians, etc. What a waste of the human potential/life modern science machine is.