On life as a researcher in academia

[unknown_nobody]

Hi all,

I have been thinking about life passions and the question of what makes a good life.
After many reflections over what it is that excites me the most about being alive, I consistently arrive at various answers, but it ultimately boils down to two fundamental feelings or things:
The first is Relationships - The realization that in the end, it really is relationships with others that matters most. Whether they be friends, lovers, family, fellow humans and other lifeforms, and the planet as a whole.
The second is Wonder - A deep feeling of wonder about the world and the cosmos.

There is nothing that captures my imagination more than learning about this universe we find ourselves in. As Einstein once said, "The most incomprehensible thing about the universe is that it is comprehensible". I think one could make the argument that if the universe were not comprehensible, we would not be here. Comprehensibility depends on the existence of patterns (or the ability to derive them), which depends on a kind of order to things (laws of nature) and lifeforms would necessarily evolve a growing ability to comprehend their environment if there was selection pressure for it.
I think that exploration, discovery, contribution to knowledge about the world, no matter how small a contribution, is something that I would like to be a part of.
I am strongly considering pursuing a graduate program in the sciences, as this seems to be the best way, considering access to technologies, to become involved in the scientific investigation of our environment.

I realize I am probably romanticizing the idea...that the realities of, or the incentives in place in the academic world are not always in the spirit of discovery for its own sake.
But there are still amazing discoveries being made.
Check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1X1mry35ykQ

I was wondering if any of you wise folk had any insight regarding a life in science? What are the realities of pursuing this route?
Jacob, if you are reading this, I know you have been there and done that, and I have read some of your posts on your reasons for getting out of that world.
Yet I still have this drive, a yearning to explore the unknown that I cannot shake, nor do I want to.
Do you think you made the right call? Would you have stayed if you were in a different field?

Are the days of discovery by generalists over? Are specialists the only ones making inroads into the workings of nature?

I too like the concept of the self-taught renaissance person, and if I can bypass the need to enter the education business in order to actually do science, I would do it.

Well, just thought I'd share my thoughts with the denizens of the forum, if anybody has any advice they would like to share, it would be greatly appreciated.

[jacob]

If I had to do it all over, I would have gotten the PhD and then left for industry.

The days of discovery by generalists are OVER! I do think this depends on the field. For example, physics is quite mature and most of the time is spent researching some tiny detail that only 5 people in the world care about. I hear the chemistry is even worse (very little explorative work, grants are written for work already done since risk taking is approaching zero... any chemists please correct me here, I'm only relating what I heard).

Since you linked to a biology video, can I assume that you're interested in that? I can tell from my experience that compared to physicists, biologists (early in their career) are not "getting out" nearly as much. A biologist postdoc might have done a few poster presentations and 1 or 2 talks. A physicist at the same age will have dozens of posters, one or two dozen talks, and several first authored papers. Bio-people seem to stay longer at the "tech"-level before they get to do their own thing. Things are a lot more standardized using commercial methods to investigate reaction X on Y-enzyme with Z protein. Again, correct me if I'm wrong...

Now publishing your first paper and finding the first result---no matter how trivial (in my case it was the halflife of a certain nuclear level)---that nobody else but you knows about was VERY exciting. Publishing papers number 10, 11, 12,... not so much. At the present time I have published somewhere between 40 and 50 papers, not sure how many. Just goes to show how much I care at this point ;-P

Research very quickly becomes a routine matter of trying to justify why you spend so much time finding results that aren't really relevant to more than a few people and publishing said result in journal papers that are read by maybe a dozen people on average. Even if you're curing cancer (which apparently I am helping to do), your research is so far removed from the "real world" that it's hard to make the connection. The only way I know, for example, is that the group I'm helping out is being funded by a cancer research grant.

To put it in perspective: It's quite likely that the post you just wrote above will be read by more people than the most impactful scientific paper you'll ever write.

Contributing your small part of knowledge to the combined knowledge of humanity should never ever be a goal. I used to think this to be a worthy goal only to realize that your purpose is more one of keeping existing knowledge alive by endless relearning and rephrasing. Some people have made a career out of reading rarely read journals (usually in Russian); redoing the research, and publishing it in English.

Hence, get the PhD. Try to make original discoveries a couple of times. Then leave and get a real job in the real world. That would be my recommendation. UNLESS ... you're one of the rare individuals who have the ability to remain enthusiastic and focused on a hypernarrow subject for the next 50 years.---In that case, become a professor.

[chipmunk]

I am 6 months out of a Ph.D. program engineering. I now work with a mix of engineers and physicists. My views of research in academia is very similar to those of Jacob.

Research very quickly becomes a routine matter of trying to justify why you spend so much time finding results that aren't really relevant to more than a few people and publishing said result in journal papers that are read by maybe a dozen people on average.

The effort/readership ratio of journal papers totally killed my desire to publish anything else. Part of my dissertation is in peer review right now. Once it is published I'm done writing papers for the foreseeable future. It's just not worth the effort.

To put it in perspective: It's quite likely that the post you just wrote above will be read by more people than the most impactful scientific paper you'll ever write.

I can't get over how accurate this statement is.

Hence, get the PhD. Try to make original discoveries a couple of times. Then leave and get a real job in the real world. That would be my recommendation. UNLESS ... you're one of the rare individuals who have the ability to remain enthusiastic and focused on a hypernarrow subject for the next 50 years.---In that case, become a professor.

This is what I've mostly managed to do and it's working out so far. We have a postdoc meeting at work every month. There are about 15 postdocs there and I'm the only one that's not doing physics research. And I'm the only one that's not stressing about conferences, papers, and grant funding before the meeting. Do I feel left out? A little, but I like that I have more of a "real job." I got burnt out on the research game before leaving grad school. Engineering grad school was a lot different than I thought it would be. Maybe other fields are different.

[unknown_nobody]

Yes, I wonder if it is actually worth it. My other plan on the table is to get into the radiology field (x-ray technologist, a 2-year program) until I become financially independent, after which I can do my own thing.

Neuroscience is what interests me the most, and it is an area that is still very young, and growing fast.

Contributing your small part of knowledge to the combined knowledge of humanity should never ever be a goal. I used to think this to be a worthy goal only to realize that your purpose is more one of keeping existing knowledge alive by endless relearning and rephrasing.

That's interesting, but why do you think this should this not be a goal? How will new things be discovered if we just focus on present knowledge? Although, thinking about it a little bit, many of the revolutionary ideas that transformed our understanding of things were actually a rephrasing of old ideas. It's almost as if every idea has its roots in an older idea that came before it, hence there are no truly original ideas, just original additions or re-phrasings.

The effort/readership ratio of journal papers totally killed my desire to publish anything else.

Something else I have heard is that there is quite a lot of pressure to publish as much as possible - quantity over quality. As a result, a lot of stuff gets put out there just for the sake of publishing something. Did you find that to be true?

Chipmunk, if you don't mind me asking, what are your plans now? What kind of work are you doing? How does financial independence fit into the picture for you?

[jacob]

Neuroscience is what interests me the most, and it is an area that is still very young, and growing fast.

Being in early can make a big difference. If you're the first generation, that is, one of the first persons to graduate in a new field of study, that's a huge advantage. If on the other hand there are already textbooks being written in the field, that means it's at least 30 years old. At this point, you're more of a commodity.

The field I was in started in 1980 by 5-10 people (the graduates of 1-2 people) who had lots of success. They went on to generate 10 PhD grads each. I was second generation, so I was in a field where the initial discoveries had been made and I was competing with 50-100 other people for the 5-10 positions above. That's entirely different that being one of the 5-10 people.

When you say "very young" be sure exactly how many people in the world are currently at your level?

10? (you'll probably make professor)
100? (I give it a 50% change)
1000? (Ha! Forget about it unless you're good at politics)
10000? (Future glorified technician)

Contributing your small part of knowledge to the combined knowledge of humanity should never ever be a goal. I used to think this to be a worthy goal only to realize that your purpose is more one of keeping existing knowledge alive by endless relearning and rephrasing.

That's interesting, but why do you think this should this not be a goal? How will new things be discovered if we just focus on present knowledge? Although, thinking about it a little bit, many of the revolutionary ideas that transformed our understanding of things were actually a rephrasing of old ideas. It's almost as if every idea has its roots in an older idea that came before it, hence there are no truly original ideas, just original additions or re-phrasings.

I'm saying that you should not do research if contributing new knowledge is a primary goal. That just sets you up for bitterness and disappointment. The key word here is _relevance_. There are definitely many many new things being discovered all the time but very few of them are of any relevance [to more than a handful of other researchers]. In fact, new things are being discovered so fast that people don't have time to read all the verbiage that's published and hence tend to "rediscover" things all the time simply because they didn't read the [perhaps Russian] literature.

Unlike the humanities, which do tend to think that there are no original ideas and that everything is just a review of someone else's review, the sciences do have some linear progression. However, it's often a progression into minute details. Research for its own sake.

The best analogy I can come up with is that incremental research in academia is like extending the knowledge of pi (3.14...) by a few decimals at the end. Why does anyone care?

You should do research if _you_ care about it (and have a reasonable expectation to keep caring about it for the next 50 years). Perhaps it's interesting to you. If you don't think about the subject 24/7, then I suggest forgetting about it or keeping it at the hobby level. You can't be competitive if you're not maintaining a 24/7 focus.

Something else I have heard is that there is quite a lot of pressure to publish as much as possible - quantity over quality. As a result, a lot of stuff gets put out there just for the sake of publishing something. Did you find that to be true?

Publish or perish. Since everybody is a specialist in their own field, the only way to gauge someone else is by the quantity of their publications. No way to tell whether they're quality papers. I was somewhat disgusted to see a strategy (this person shall remain anonymous) for splitting up a discovery so as to maximize the number of publications from it. Where I had planned to keep everything in 1 or 2 papers, he had 15 papers for the same material. Many of his papers contained redundancies---if you read one, you read them all. Some publications are like that. Conference talks are mostly like that. Once you've been around for a few years, you won't be learning much new from conferences as in "yeah, I already heard that talk three years ago. Look the dude didn't even bother to change the date of his slides.".

You'd want to read this... in my experience this paper is an apt description of the state of affairs.
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310368

[JamesR]

The current academia system seems a bit broken.

By the way "a life in science" did not imply "a life as a researcher in academia" to me.

Perhaps a life in science is still possible while minimizing the academia parts.

[jacob]

Perhaps a life in science is still possible while minimizing the academia parts.

I think so. For example, in my current finance job the explorative spirit (encouragement of pursuing original tracks) seems to be (read: _IS_) higher than it ever was in my scientific pursuits. I've definitely tried more different hypotheses in the two years I've been in finance than the 10 years I did active [academic] research.

[JamesR]

jacob: too bad you can't share that

[jacob]

Almost forgot about these. H/T Dautsen's journal.

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-illu ... phd-2012-3
(I've generally found more value in making my center circle larger instead of building little mountains on the surface.)

http://phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1 (do read through the whole thing, it's accurate)

[chipmunk]

Something else I have heard is that there is quite a lot of pressure to publish as much as possible - quantity over quality. As a result, a lot of stuff gets put out there just for the sake of publishing something. Did you find that to be true?

Absolutely. "Publish or perish" is no myth. It's totally about quantity. There is a guy who has (co-)authored ~200 papers in the field that I did my dissertation work in. That said, I cited less than 5 of them because they are so redundant. I have seen the exact same (verbatim) introduction repeated in multiple papers by the same author. Seeing the exact same figure in multiple papers is very common too. It's pretty disgusting at times.

Chipmunk, if you don't mind me asking, what are your plans now? What kind of work are you doing? How does financial independence fit into the picture for you?

I currently work at a university that is updating a lab. It's engineering work in support of research - a subtle yet significant difference. It's sustainable in the short/medium term but I there's no way I want to do this for decades. The plane, therefore, is to save up and invest as much money as I can. If my next project makes money then great. If not, I'll be prepared. I've got a ways to go before I'm financially independent but that's ok because I haven't figured out what my next project will be. (I define project as something that I work on >20 hours a week, which could be a job or hobby.)

When I was an undergraduate student I (naively) thought that anyone with a Ph.D. was automatically an all-around intellectual. Wrong. True, there are some people that have branched out but the vast majority are experts in very small, obscure fields. That's about it. Take away their experience in this really narrow field and they're not much different than the rest of the population.

I spent five years in graduate school studying a field that, to be quite honest, was pretty much figured out decades ago. My contribution was so terribly insignificant. That's one of the main reasons why I got tired of research in academia. The other main reason was that I can't see myself putting all of my effort into this really small field for decades. But, it's not just this field, it's anything. It's the same way I could never be one of those people that spends decades trying to get an Nth degree black belt in a marital art or someone aspiring to be an Olympian that practices throwing a shot put 40 hours a week. I just don't think I have the personality for a decades-long obsession of an obscure topic. Once I get the general idea of something I'm fairly satisfied.

The businessinsider link is especially accurate. I've already climbed 95% of the way up one mountain. I have no desire to spend decades finishing the last 5%. I'd much rather (mostly) climb a new mountain every few years. But hey, I might find a mountain I really enjoy some day that I never get tired of and want to spend decades try to get to the top.

[jacob]

[
When I was an undergraduate student I (naively) thought that anyone with a Ph.D. was automatically an all-around intellectual. Wrong. True, there are some people that have branched out but the vast majority are experts in very small, obscure fields. That's about it. Take away their experience in this really narrow field and they're not much different than the rest of the population.

Same experience. It blows my mind how few books the typical professor/postdoc/grad student seems to keep at home. The work books are at work but those are about the only ones that are being read. I tend to get some flak from the humanities when I state this narrow form of intellectualism, so I think the humanities are probably a bit broader in terms of reading interests.

[Dragline]

Just want to say this is an excellent thread. And now I'm glad I did not go to grad school in science.

[canoeingman]

interesting thread and good comments. I am a professor in the Life Sciences in the UK, been in academia for 34 years but planning to take early retirement at the end of this year in order to pursue a lot of new interests/hobbies and develop new skills. I think doing a PhD is the most exciting stage in a scientist's career but after that, academia is all about hard work, publishing and getting the lucky break to get a faculty position. If you have a passion for doing research then I would say go for it, and then decide how you feel after ~4 years of PhD work on your next step. There are many options besides staying in academia, eg industry as mentioned by Jacob.

[skintstudent]

If I could do it all over again, I'd definitely not do a PhD. It has been the most miserable waste of 5 years of my life (biotech).

From my experience, industry is where the excitment of doing something new lies. A PhD will make you a super specialist and yes you'll learn an awful lot about a miniscule area of science. A career in academia (if that's what you pictured by "a life in science") will involve working in a department where you'll be encouraged to go for the low-hanging fruit, i.e. doing something because it's relatively achievable and publishable. You'll not be encouraged to pursue matters that are going to be relevant to large numbers of people, nor because they'll answer the big questions (that's too tricky). In addition you'll be subject to short term contracts at very low pay (in most countries).

In industry you will not be pushing the boundaries ever further, but instead you will be focussing on developing science that is relevant to many people. You'll also have to take projects from the point of an idea that worked well enough to generate publishable data to the state where it is repeatable and reliable. This requires a far more comprehensive understanding in many respects.

Finally academia must have one of the most rigid hierarchical systems around. For the vast majority, your position and career prospects will be dominated by when you got into a field. Many established figures in your department will be hard and/or talented workers, but as a new researcher you'll find yourself working with people who have far better terms and conditions despite them appearing lazy and/or incompetent. As Jacob indicates, their major attribute was that they were around when a new research department was in its infancy.

Sorry if this is a bitter rant against academia, but it is one that you'll find all too common amongst those who thought that "academia" was the route to a pursuit of knowledge. Do a lot of research before embarking down the path. It is the way for some, but so many are disillusioned by it.

[jennypenny]

Why did/does everyone continue to pursue the PhD after you realize that it's not worth the effort? Why not just stop? We're not talking about months, but years of study that everyone implies is a waste of time. Am I misunderstanding? Is it academia that disillusions everyone, but you still value the PhD? Or is everyone really clueless until after their defense or think somehow it will be different for them?

It seems to me like complaining about PhD's might be a part of the culture. Most PhD's I've known speak negatively of the experience. Is complaining just the 'in' thing to do? It reminds me of the way people complain about their spouses as if it's expected of them. (Take my PhD, please.) As someone described in another thread, is complaining a part of the bonding experience?

I don't mean this to sound accusatory, and I'm not implying that anything anyone has said is factually incorrect. I'm just curious why the people one would assume are the smartest in the room all make the same mistake, if that's what it is.

[skintstudent]

That's a good question, and difficult to answer because it means admitting mistakes to yourself.

I was on the point of quitting, and had there not been major changes to what was expected of me by my supervisor I would have quit. The letter was written and in my pocket ready to hand over.

However, even though I continued, I doesn't mean that I feel my time couldn't have been spent more wisely than doing a PhD. For me the major problem was that it took a long time to fully understand what an academic career was about, and also that a PhD is simply a low paid apprenticeship for an academic career.

For those in the department where I studied, a PhD seems to comprise of four stages. Stage 1 is familiarisation with the field. This involves a lot of background reading and learning how to use equipment etc. Stage 2 involves more focussed experiments, that will lead to the subject of your thesis. Stage 3 is performing experiments that have publishable results and will form the body of your thesis. Stage 4 is writing up, including performing any experiments required to "fill the gaps" in your thesis.

Stages 1 and 2 are actually ok - you are learning a lot and there is little pressure on achieving "positive" results. (This clearly varies by department and institution, and the quality of the workplace will determine whether this stage is great, ok or just about bearable).

For me, it was only when I got to stage 3 that it became clear truly what an academic career would entail. After giving it some time to ensure that you are not just getting the "PhD blues" you may well be three years into your studies. Having invested so much time, it is difficult to just "give up".

I was extremely lucky to have a supportive partner, who has always let me know that she would think no worse of me should I quit, but very few others see things this way. My own parents even came out with the line that "I will always be thought of as a failure if I didn't finish". Friends and acquaintances may not be so harsh, but they see it as a career at the cutting edge of science, so it must be well paid and thrilling. A plumber friend was flabbergasted that my expected earnings in academia would be half what he makes. Nobody can understand why you would quit, having already invested so much time.

So I guess that I was left with the choice of spend another year finishing, or be seen as a quitter (or even failure) by those who had not had similar experiences. Given some choices that I made prior to starting my PhD, the latter would make employment difficult. So I stayed on.

As for others, I know that many fall into academia after finishing their PhDs. Either it was the easy option or they couldn't find work elsewhere as quickly as they could in academia. If more people had savings, perhaps fewer would be academics and be more happy with their choices.

What saddens me most is that PhDs are tailored only to academic research. Much other research goes on without the publish or perish mentaility that pervades academia. Unfortunately, a PhD does little to promote skills other than those needed to publish academic papers. There is much talk of transferable skills, but it is clear that this is just dressing up what you would have to learn anyway. Hopefully things will improve. Academia is in a bubble and will need to adapt to survive as governments change their funding models.

[chipmunk]

Why did/does everyone continue to pursue the PhD after you realize that it's not worth the effort? Why not just stop?

skintstudent's answer is similiar to mine expect tha tI didn't have pressure from anyone to finish.

I realized about year 4 (out of 5) that research in academia was not for me. I could have stopped with an M.S. but decided to carry on anyways. The kind of work I could expect with an M.S. in my field does not appeal to me and I knew that finishing the Ph.D. would lead to opportunitites that better fit my interests and personality (but not necessarily more opportunities). Plus, and this is a big plus, I had by far the most laid back committe ever and was fully funded the entire time. Had either one of these not been the case I might have bailed out.

Would I do it again knowing what I know now? I'm not really sure. Maybe, but definitely in a different field, a field more relatable to the general public.

To me grad school was a test of endurance and patience. I now know I am capable of working indepenedly on a long-term peoblem that does not have a textbook solution. This knowledge has been extremely helpful and encouraging as I work to construct a financial and lifestyle plan that will allow me to work a job becuase I enjoy it (not because I need the money) or forgo employment alltogether. (I am by no means saying that anyone without a graduate degree is incapable of workign on difficult, long-term problems.)

It seems to me like complaining about PhD's might be a part of the culture. Most PhD's I've known speak negatively of the experience. Is complaining just the 'in' thing to do? It reminds me of the way people complain about their spouses as if it's expected of them. (Take my PhD, please.) As someone described in another thread, is complaining a part of the bonding experience?

There will always be the "back in my day" and the "barefoot in the snow uphill both ways" crowd whereever you go. I complain about grad school becuase it was very different from what I expected.

This thread has turned into a rant against research in academia. That is not to say, however, that science outside of academia is not possible. Amatuer astronomers come to mind as an example. Many of them build and maintain their own telescopes. Heck, a few even discover a comet every now and then. They're probably scoffed at as "hobbyists" but I would wager that they look through a telescopr more often and know their way around the night sky better than many "real" astronomers.

[jacob]

Q: Why do people stay married after they realize it's not worth the effort?
A: Inertia + denial + contractual stickiness + it takes time to realize it and make the decision.

Quitting science is a bit like breaking up.

In particular, I think people who go into research tend to do it because they love the field. Not because they do a net present value analysis of future cash flows, career prospects, and job security. It's quite possible to remain blissfully ignorant about reality (putting food on the table) for years when all you care about is the science.

The love is created by popularizers talking about exciting discoveries, esteemed scientists pondering orginal ideas, and winning Nobel Prizes. It's propagated all the way into grad school by professors talking about their exciting research and all you gotta do is to work hard and you will become a professor yourself.

But then, maybe you start talking to the postdoc who has sent out 500 applications and only gotten a couple of interviews. You find that some professors prioritize quantity over quality. You find professors who are inept researchers but who are really good at getting grants. You find that outside people's specialties they don't know much (typically less than an undergrad) or even display much of any interest in such fields. It's like when I'm asked what I think about Hawking's newest statement regarding the existence of black holes. My 18 year old self: Superexciting!!! My present self: Huh? What? I don't really care.

In other words, unless people are lucky enough to share room or bullpen with an outspoken postdoc, senior grad student, or untenured professor, all this is kinda kept hidden. The disgruntled don't get to talk to the fresh meat, ... excuse me, promising young students.

FWIW, I would still do my PhD again. I learned things about my capabilities much like chipmunk stated that I don't think I would have learned otherwise. It was kinda like the honeymoon of science. However, it took me a few years after that to realize that I did not want to do academic research for the rest of my life. It's sort of an ongoing internal conversion: "Do I still love science enough despite these things". In the beginning it's no problem but as more and more evidence piles up that the "epic tales on PBS" are 200 miles from most people's experiences, it becomes harder and harder to justify staying with it.

It obviously also depends on individual experience. Say you lucked into a project in gradute school that 1) will turn out to be the hot topic in 5 years 2) you manage to publish your discovery 2 months before a competing group figures out the same thing. Then you might just win an award. Now, this reward will get you a prestigious fellowship somewhere quite likely. At this point you actually don't have to do much interesting research anymore. Because of your hot topic, you can spend the next two years giving the same talk in 50 different places. Because of the fellowship you are first in the queue for an asst. prof. position.

Compare this to doing an important but nonsexy job in grad school, e.g. you calculated a bunch of tables that will be heavily used for the years to come. However, a great set of data is not going to get you an award, because it's not a discovery per se (compare designing a telescope making a possible to see further with using said telescope to spot a new astronomical object ... the award will always go to the latter). Right, so no award and a generic postdoc. Now you will spend the next years working hard publishing. When it comes time to applying for positions, you will be in the back of the queue. Very likely, you wont get it. If you keep working heard, your likely destiny will be perma-postdoc (the sole holder of knowledge of how to operate an obscure piece of equipment), research professor (same thing), or staff scientist.

Now, remember that people tend to attribute success to skill and failure to lack of luck. Hence, if you talk to people who made it, they'll say that it's all thanks to their hard work and recommend you do the same. If you talk to the 90% that didn't succeed they'll say the system sucks.

So does the system suck?

It depends on your luck and how hard you work

[unknown_nobody]

There is a wealth of experience and knowledge here, thank you all for sharing. At least we, as humans, still have that exploratory spirit that seems to be embedded in our constitution. That it can be drowned out by the way the academic research structure operates is very sad though.

From the paper that Jacob linked to:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310368

"Nevertheless, I believe that there is something great in astronomy, in physics, in all the natural sciences that allows the human being to look beyond its present place and to arrive at some understanding of what goes on beyond the insignificant meanness of spirit that so often pervades our existence. There is a Nature; there is a Cosmos; and we walk towards the understanding of it all. Is it not wonderful? There are many charms in the profession; as many charms as in love provided, of course, that they are not in the service of mercantile aims" (25)

The problem seems to be among the oldest in human civilization, which afflicts all aspects of society - the drive for money and power in a world of limited resources.

"These problems are reflected in many other fields of culture, as well as in
our own society. Everything produced contaminates everything else. There are no isolated problems; any human activity is a reflection of the environment that surrounds it. We live in a rotten society that deceives itself. What else could be expected from science in such a society?" (24)

The author (Martín López Corredoira) writes about the mercantile underpinning of the science industry, and how it becomes more mafia-like the more money is invested.

I also liked this paragraph:
"The system really invites being left alone. I am actually convinced that if somebody wants to
make something important—here, again, I remark that this is not only applicable to the sciences but, in general, to any human Mafia with the name of ‘culture’—it must be done away from officialdom, and perhaps in free time and laborious study by oneself. The problem for the sciences with this position is thence the precarious or even nullified possibilities available to thus observe or make experiments, not to mention the bad reputation associated with free-thinking occurring away from the official institutions. Since the expenses for the necessary materials are very high, the possibility of doing high-level empirical research from the periphery, in any field, is practically nought. The only possibility is pure theory/speculation, or perhaps feeding of empirical data produced by other scientists which is, in fact, quite frequent" (22).

which ties into what Chipmunk wrote:

Amatuer astronomers come to mind as an example. Many of them build and maintain their own telescopes. Heck, a few even discover a comet every now and then. They're probably scoffed at as "hobbyists" but I would wager that they look through a telescopr more often and know their way around the night sky better than many "real" astronomers.

Though for every serious independent researcher out there, there are more "barmies" as the author calls them, who espouse many new, wild, but not rigorous theories of the universe. Thus, the work of the serious researcher can be drowned out yet again in the noise and by the perceived lack of credibility because they are not associated with the "accepted" institutions.

Now, remember that people tend to attribute success to skill and failure to lack of luck. Hence, if you talk to people who made it, they'll say that it's all thanks to their hard work and recommend you do the same. If you talk to the 90% that didn't succeed they'll say the system sucks.

So does the system suck?

It depends on your luck and how hard you work

Haha nice. I've heard a variation of this, whereby "Every man is self-made but only the successful will admit it". But do they admit the luck as well?

I'd much rather (mostly) climb a new mountain every few years. But hey, I might find a mountain I really enjoy some day that I never get tired of and want to spend decades try to get to the top.

I hear that. I think I feel the same way. And this is in the spirit of the Renaissance person - seeking a broad knowledge in many areas, a more universal knowledge of the universe.

Finally academia must have one of the most rigid hierarchical systems around.

That's what I have been reading recently. And it's interesting since science as a process, has as one of its main principles; non-deference to authority. It's not like there is a Vatican of science, or a group of rulers that determine how nature is according to their liking. But it seems that, in practice, it kind of is like that - in regards to scientific theories which are the preferred, or favorite ones. Except of course in cases where observation of nature provides indisputable evidence to the contrary. One of the examples Corredoira gave was the tendency or desire to use gravitation to explain many cosmological problems while discounting possible alternative theories that challenge the status quo. He gave the analogy of a patchwork theory, much like the pre-copernicus astronomy, which finally collapsed due to the accumulation of patches. I don't know if he is right that the current situation is like this...that the concepts of dark matter and dark energy are artificial patches...I don't know enough about the matter, but it could be since people and their habits haven't changed much. What is certain is that there is a vast unknown out there.

Sorry if this is a bitter rant against academia, but it is one that you'll find all too common amongst those who thought that "academia" was the route to a pursuit of knowledge.

No worries, it's better to know the reality of things. I think these comments are super helpful for anybody thinking about a career in academia.

By the way "a life in science" did not imply "a life as a researcher in academia" to me.

Thanks, yeah good point it needs to be more specific, I'll edit the title.

[workathome]

I hear the debates often go quite like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UMedd0 ... 46E7F16DEC