[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]

>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?

Yes, I would say that represents a gap between a public who want to see a science factory in which not one single blueberry muffin is ever wasted on an unworthy grad-student's wasteful seminar, and the actual reality of how science works. The problem is that going, "aha, gotcha, you were HIDING these ILLICIT SEMINARS on SPECULATIVE WORK!" doesn't educate the public on how science really works and also doesn't make the seminars unnecessary. If you eliminate all the scientific processes that don't conform to an uninformed popular image of white-collar "efficiency" (eg: Office Space), you won't have any good scientists left, because they'll fuck off to private-sector jobs where you don't have to justify a blueberry muffin to a hostile Senate subcommittee.

(For anyone wondering if I'm hungry or something, in January 2025 my lab's parent university forbade us from providing lunch during lab meetings because they were informed that the incoming Administration was going to start looking for efficiencies in scientific grant funding.)

[searine]

I think our impasse is for some reason you have this idea that PI's hate their work / are gaming the system. I just don't understand where you are coming from. Maybe that's true sometimes, but most all PIs I have worked with are not gaming the system. They are just working on a decades-long line of inquiry.

>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. Their sources of funding expect more predictability than they can realistically provide. Wouldn't you say that represents a gap in the public's visibility?

Their grant is public record. Their oversight during that grant is public record. Their regulatory approvals are public record. Their publications are public record.

"Basically finished" is not finished. It is not finished unless it has been published. Your statement is like saying "its wrong for a baker to buy an oven if he already has the flour and sugar. The cake is basically finished. He is just putting future costs into this current cake".

Most grant applications include prior work, current work, and future work. A program officer will make site visits and assess current work and upcoming work. Funding of a grant is not "do X thing and publish, end of project and money:. It is the pursuit of an idea. If task 1 is "basically finished" the PO will push for publication of that and moving on to the next aim.

In many cases having an aim "basically finished" is a good thing. It shows that prior work is successful and future work can produce similar success. Most grants have multiple aims and several sub-aims. If one aim is finished, they move on to the next. If all the aims are complete, the grant usually indicates next steps. The PI and PO will have discussed the next steps long before they are carried out.

If the PI chooses use some funds from a grant to carry out speculative research. Good. GOOD. That is what scientific inquiry is meant for. Not all research can be speculative. Not at research can be mainstream. It is a mix, based on opportunity and expertise.

This is grants 101. Please, again, I'm not lecturing you on software development, because it is not my expertise. Please understand scientific funding before lecturing me about it.

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

Its not name calling to call out your anti-intellectualism. You are contributing to the decline of American science, and I will not stand for it.

[monkeyelite]

> you have this idea that PI's hate their work / are gaming the system.

That’s actually not what I said.

> If the PI chooses use some funds from a grant to carry out speculative research. Good. GOOD. That is what scientific inquiry is meant for.

My claim is not about good or bad. My claim is that there is a gap between how science is done and how it is presented to the public.

> This is grants 101

You seem to agree such a gap exists, you just think it’s a good thing or a matter of business.

> because it is not my expertise

So notice when I bring up correct information, I’m told I don’t have the experience/expertise to do so despite my academic union card.

Please do share opinions about software. We have no professional organization. People argue with ideas.

> You are contributing to the decline of American science, and I will not stand for it.

you seem to identify intellectualism as a group of people or an organization.

I think that’s a mockery of truth and ideas.

Yes American science as a family of organizations deserves scrutiny and critiques. Funding these organizations is not an absolute public good.

[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.