| > Why are you harsh? Science is a good investment (...) Like any high-risk investment, science is a good investment because sometimes one out of N researchers is able to have meaningful output, while the remaining N-1 barely manage to justify their existence. This might be a easy risk to take for those who take in funding, but it is also has negative tradeoffs for society in general and researchers in particular. Think for a minute about research candidates and their careers. They are admitted as researchers fresh out of college, they spend years doing hard intellectual work on subjects with little to no relationship with industry in an environment which arguably makes you even less suited to work in industry, their livelihood in the short term becomes dependent on their institution's ability to attract funding and in the long term depends on some research institutions opening tenured positions. Look at BSC. Do you think there will be 500 tenured positions being opened in the next decade for these researchers alone? And these are the guys already in the pipeline. 300 tenure positions per year is unthinkable. More will enter it next year, and the next year, and the next year, etc. What's your plan for these people? How do you expect them to enter the job market? Academia is a meat grinder that's fed by graduates and spits them out, most of the time with nothing of value in terms of relevant skilsets and professional experience, and dumped onto the job market already with an age band that's incompatible with entry-level positions. In the meantime, the money spent on these research positions could be used elsewhere. A low/mid density residential building costs around 1 million to build, and houses a dozen families or so for life. God knows Barcelona is experiencing a major housing crisis. Is this a good tradeoff? How do you classify this as a good investment? |