[monkeyelite]

Professors have told me it doesn’t matter which administration is in - they just need to rebrand their project to meet funding requirements. Isn’t that a scary thought? We have no visibility and they are skilled enough to transform into any form.

[eli_gottlieb]

No, it's not a scary thought that physicists and chemists don't care whether a Republican or Democrat is in office.

[monkeyelite]

It’s scary that:

1. Our top researchers are wasting their time and energy promoting projects for grants. 2. Any attempt by the public to oversee or guide these grants is thwarted by smart people. 3. If you try to learn more about where the money is going or what’s being counted as science people on HN will call it “anti-intellectual propoganda”.

[eli_gottlieb]

Points (1) and (3) appear to contradict each-other, AFAICT. Surely if you made researchers "waste" less time on the grant process, that would reduce the public's ability to supervise and intervene on what get's funded in an informed way? Much to most of the grant procedures researchers have to follow consist precisely in generating metrics, documentation, and other material meant to demonstrate to a skeptical public where the money is going.

You can trust professionals to do their jobs as they see fit and write them a check, or you can make them "waste" time proving to you they're doing the job you want them to do. You can't have low-trust and low-effort grant administration.

[searine]

You have no idea what you are talking about, and yes you are buying into (or actively promoting) anti-intellectualism.

>1. Our top researchers are wasting their time and energy promoting projects for grants.

There are all kinds of scientists, some do the research, some do the writing, some do the grantsmanship. Getting money to fund an idea is not lesser than, it is often the hardest part. It takes understanding an communication skills to convince a panel of peer-experts that your ideas are good enough to give millions of dollars to.

> 2. Any attempt by the public to oversee or guide these grants is thwarted by smart people.

There is a tremendous amount of publicly available oversight at every step, including opportunity for public commentary.

Just because you personally don't know it exists, doesn't mean that it does not exist.

>3. If you try to learn more about where the money is going or what’s being counted as science people on HN will call it “anti-intellectual propoganda”.

Again. Its all public info. Its all publicly presented. If you ask, scientists will leap at the chance to tell you what they did and how they spent that money.

Please. PLEASE. I am begging you. Learn about a subject before forming an opinion about it.

[monkeyelite]

> Please. PLEASE. I am begging you. Learn about a subject before forming an opinion about it.

I actually lived it, so thanks for your understanding and consideration.

> Getting money to fund an idea is not lesser than, it is often the hardest part.

Difficulty is not value. Extremely talented people are doing arbitrary waste work!

And you’re right - promotors aren’t lesser. They are greater - more valued in academic job placement and promotion.

> There is a tremendous amount of publicly available oversight at every step,

Did you miss the prior comment? The existing oversight is ineffective. Researchers see it as a hoop to jump through.

> If you ask, scientists will leap at the chance to tell you what they did

Personal communication is not systematic public reporting.

Also professors tend to use a two job approach: stuff they like, and stuff that’s important for their career. Unless I attend a specialized conference I won’t hear about the latter, except in a form crafted for public reception. That’s the one that gets grants.

> Again. Its all public info. Its all publicly presented.

There is public info - but it’s a facade. It’s constructed with the goal of appeasing the public requirements.

> yes you are buying into (or actively promoting) anti-intellectualism.

Name calling.

[searine]

>Difficulty is not value. Extremely talented people are doing arbitrary waste work.

Grants are hard, not because of admin/paperwork, but because coming up with a novel idea is hard and convincing others to fund it is harder.

The people leading the grants are the ones creating and guiding the ideas. They set the agenda.

A tech CEO doesn't spend their days coding minor bug fixes, in the same way a PI doesn't spend their days doing lab work. They are leaders, who are occupied getting funding and setting the direction.

>Did you miss the comment we are replying to? The existing oversight is ineffective. It’s just a hoop for the professor to jump through.

It's not ineffective though, and an excess of PhDs is not a collapse, it is a boon.

>Personal communication is not systematic public reporting.

You have absolutely no clue how much public reporting is involved in grants. Just a complete ignorant comment right here.

>There is public info - but it’s a facade. It’s constructed with the goal of appeasing the public requirements.

Conspiracy bullshit. Take your meds.

>Also professors tend to use a two job approach: stuff they like, and stuff that’s important for their career.

Wrong. Every PI I know does the stuff they like, and they get it well funded, because they are the best in the world at what they do.

>I actually lived it, so thanks for your understanding and consideration.

You post about tech and programming and call yourself a "software engineer".

>yes you are buying into (or actively promoting) anti-intellectualism. >Name calling.

Good. You should feel ashamed for the way you are acting.

[monkeyelite]

> convincing others to fund it is harder.

Yes, we are in agreement. That's why promoters are so valuable.

> in the same way a PI doesn't spend their days doing lab work.

This large workforce of Phd's protecting the time of the PI also represents a massive allocation of young intelligent talent, and that's part of my concern.

> an excess of PhDs is not a collapse, it is a boon.

It's difficult to talk about demand for required credentials. A large percentage is foreigners securing visas to work in the US.

> You have absolutely no clue how much public reporting is involved in grants. Just a complete ignorant comment right here.

> Conspiracy bullshit. Take your meds.

I think researchers put a great deal of care into public reporting. And I think they use their intellect to construct a story conducive to their careers. Who doesn't?

I am aware of researchers who use a technique where they get funding for a project that is basically finished, and use the funds for more speculative research. TTheir sources of funding expect more predictability than they can realistically provide. Wouldn't you say that represents a gap in the public's visibility?

> Every PI I know does the stuff they like

I don't doubt they are passionate and driven. I'm saying something different. When you are in the thick of establishing yourself you have to care more about what system cares about (this is maybe your situation?), and modern competition makes this all encompassing. But the book they write in sabbatical tends to look different than their official title.

> they get it well funded, because they are the best in the world at what they do.

How would we falsify this statement?

> You post about tech and programming and call yourself a "software engineer".

PhD to software engineer is a common career path.

> Good. You should feel ashamed for the way you are acting.

Name calling doesn't sound intellectual to me. I choose not to reciprocate.

EDIT: to focus on my personal beliefs and not yours.

[eli_gottlieb]

> Did you miss the prior comment? The existing oversight is ineffective. Researchers see it as a hoop to jump through.

All oversight is a hoop to jump through in a low-trust principal-agent system. Adding oversight bureaucracy partially helps in aligning the scientists to the public interests (after all, if they're working on something totally disconnected from funding goals, they won't get funded) but can never really increase public trust in the scientists or the grant-agency bureaucrats.