Ongoing studies into the goals and utility of academic research

I saw this article in the newspaper today and posted my thoughts about it on Facebook.  I've since deleted the post, but here is a copy...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I always love it when scientists discover things that ordinary people have known for centuries. So it turns out those pelicans you see gliding above the waves are actually saving energy by catching updrafts off the waves? Whooda thunk?!

Well now we have a mathematical model of this phenomenon. Do you know what we can do with this information? Nothing! Do you know what business or government agency will use this information? Abso-fucking-lutely none!

This information has now been published in the scholarly journal "Movement Ecology", which is so obscure and has a readership so tiny, that probably no more than 10 people in the world will read this research paper in its entirety. The researcher however, got to play around with physics equations, which is no doubt their idea of a fun time. Now they'll get kudos from their fellow researchers, and go on to live a life contributing very little to society, and be able to go to international conferences and take sabbaticals, and generally be on vacation for the rest of their life, at taxpayer expense.

Thank gawd most of the important research going on in the world doesn't happen at fucked universities and isn't conducted by stupid people with PhDs. 

https://movementecologyjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40462-021-00247-9

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An oceanographer scientist that I know saw my post and responded as follows...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why are you so angry all the time?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This was clearly a defense mechanism, an indication that she had no intention of answering the questions I'd posed in my post, but rather, to sidetrack the discussion and make it seem that my opinion is worthless and there's something fundamentally wrong with my psyche.  So, rather than create a kerfuffle in front of a large audience online, I messaged her privately....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why am I so angry? Because I never get an answer when I ask what the goals and utility of that kind of research are. What is its application?  After 17 years of working in academia (and not being good at the job), and another 15 years working in the research center of a major Silicon Valley company, I can see the difference in research styles. In the mid-20th century scientists were splitting the atom and going to the moon. My PhD thesis, submitted in the year 2000, was about a mathematical model of a neuron. Here I am 20 years later and  what has that achieved? Meanwhile, literally billions of people have miniature computers in their hands and a high-speed roving connection to the internet, which has enabled a whole slew of other technologies to exist (like this messenger app we were using for example).

That's ok. The things I want to say about it are best not said on Facebook and not said to you, as a matter of respect. I have a blog for that kind of stuff. My blogs get more readership than most scientific papers, and I know that because I have the numbers.

Peace, love, and stuff. 😊

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To this she responded with silence at first, which is another defense mechanism commonly used by academics when confronted about the application of their work).  So I wrote to her again...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually, your comment "Why are you so angry all the time?" was a defense mechanism to avoid answering my questions. I've seen academics and scientists use various defense mechanisms when confronted about the goals and utility of their work. They change the subject, get defensive, give a strawman argument, compare themselves or their work to great scientists or discoveries of the past. That's ok, I get it. It's all very very important things they're doing.  Gotta keep the dream alive.

Peace, love, and stuff 😊

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

She finally replied....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jesus. No, I really wanted to know why you are so angry. I didn’t read the article you posted, just saw that it had something to do with pelicans. I did see a release from Scripps that describes it and it sounds like the utility is in the area of improving flight efficiency (they specifically cited drones) and also a more general result of a better understanding of the ocean/air interface, which is important for things like weather prediction. But I know, in your opinion it’s useless if it doesn’t put a better microchip in your pocket. Anyway I have to get back to working on locating fronts for the navy (so they can use their sonar to locate and kill the bad guys) and determining how good our ocean/atmosphere resolution has to be to get it right.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To which I replied...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oh yes, the uses that scientists dream up for their research AFTER they've done it are truly amazing. "Well, it could be applied to this, or that, or something else". But it probably never will be. They like to stretch idea of what it might be used for. I'm glad you've found a use for your work. I was beginning to think I'd get no response at all, which is another commonly used defense mechanism. This discussion is rounding out my blog nicely. After all, you're a public figure, so you won't mind if I put your words in the public domain.

P, L, 😊& S 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There was some more discussion about funding for academic research, and the state of my apparent anger. We caught up on old news, and then I gave my final reply...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess that's the difference between academic research and engineering research. In academic research you apply for funding and justify it with a use. There is a lot of competition for the limited amount of funding available. In engineering research you have a product people want to buy, that provides a service they want or solves a problem they want solved. You don't have to ask people for money or justify it, they are willing to give you money because they want and need your product.  The use is inherent and obvious to the product. The product can end up becoming so popular that you cant find a rake big enough to rake in the cash you get for your product, and the cash piles up in enormous mounds. 😊

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And that was that.

- Dave Bad Person

How scientists lie about the goals and utility of their research

This is currently only a prototype post and is part of an ongoing series of blog posts exposing the mistruths that academia uses to fool the public, so they can continue to garner funding to continue their low-effort, low-productivity academic lifestyle and frivolous dream-chasing.  I will be adding more examples to it as time goes on.  Come back later for further updates.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Have you ever been watching some scientific news or reading an article about some sort of scientific research, and at the end of the article the goals and purpose of the research is given? I've seen this many hundreds of times in my life. After a 17 year career in academia and 14 years working in commerical R&D, it's completely transparent to me how this works.  

Take for example this article recently sent to me by a friend.  The important part here is to read the last two sentences.

https://www.zerohedge.com/health/fungi-absorbs-radiation-has-been-growing-all-over-chernobyl-power-plant

Those last two sentences again:

If this study is successful, experts hope that the knowledge gained can be used to produce drugs that could protect astronauts from radiation on long-term missions.
It has also been suggested that the results of this study could lead to the development of fungi-based cancer treatments.

Of course in the final sentences of the article the scientists always have to dream up some grand reason for why they're doing their completely useless and obscure research, "Um ah, it might help develop drugs for astronauts to survive long space missions? Um ah, it could lead to fungal cures for cancer?". 

What a crock of shit. They embark on the research first because they work in some obscure field and have a personal fascination with it, but they also have a need to "publish or perish".  Scientists need at least two publications a year to maintain their careers. So they conduct some research, and then they dream up some possible use for it.

Are the researchers above actually doing research on fungal cancer cures or radiation in long term space missions? Nope, they never were, that was never the goal of their research. The purpose of the research is dreamed up after the research is started. You'll see this all the time in scientific articles and news pieces, the final sentences are some sort of concocted possibility of what the research might be useful for.  In reality however, most scientists have absolutely no idea what utility their research might have. Often they don't even know what the long term goal of their research is.

Currently we have about 2.5 million scholarly scientific articles published each year in over 28,000 scholarly peer-reviewed journals. Many of those journals are very obscure, you're not going to find them on the magazine stands at your local newspaper shop. They also have extremely low readership, and many of them require a paid subscription to read the articles in them.  So more than likely, the research of these scientists will be lost and forgotten in the pages of some obscure scientific journal, to be read by only a handful of people.  However the scientists that publish their research article will appear to have met their minimal level of productivity based on the "two publications per year" rule.  This will allow them to continue to get funding and be able to continue their academic lifestyle of frivolous dream chasing and non-contribution to society. 

Meanwhile, in the world of industry and commerce, there are numerous research projects being done for specific purposes, to solve specific problems, so that specific goals can be achieved. There's an obvious contrast between goal-directed research versus research done to discover things simply because there are things out there to be discovered. The contrast between practical problem solving and frivolous knowledge collecting.

That's all for now. I'll be adding more examples here as I come across them, which would be a daily thing if I was chasing citations like a scientist.  

If you want to read another one of my articles that criticizes the goals and utility of academic research, check out this link.

http://www.badperson.net/2020/02/academics-have-become-detached-from-reality.html

-Dave Bad Person, PhD wanker




More reading on this topic


Here's another one of my blog posts about why a non-professional college degree is useless.
https://www.badperson.net/2019/10/why-non-professional-college-degree-is.html

Here's my blog post about how academics have become detached from the reality of what society needs from them.
https://www.badperson.net/2020/02/academics-have-become-detached-from-reality.html

If you want to read another thread about my shitty university experiences, check this out:
https://boredofstudies.org/threads/the-australian-national-university-anu-is-a-terrible-university-and-will-ruin-your-future.387681/
https://www.badperson.net/2019/11/the-australian-national-university-anu.html

Here's my parody of the media release by the President of the Australian Academy of Science regarding the recent mega-fires in Australia.
https://www.badperson.net/2020/01/a-message-from-president-of-australian.html



References

https://www.zerohedge.com/health/fungi-absorbs-radiation-has-been-growing-all-over-chernobyl-power-plant

https://sciencenordic.com/academia-basic-research-basic-research-crisis/crisis-in-basic-research-scientists-publish-too-much/1442296

https://www.businessinsider.com/fungi-from-chernobyl-were-launched-into-space-2016-7

https://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2020/02/04/fungi_that_eat_radiation_are_growing_on_the_walls_of_chernobyls_ruined_nuclear_reactor.html

https://pharmacy-nutrition.usask.ca/research/spotlight-profiles/spotlight-on-dr.-ekaterina-dadachova.php

https://www.nature.com/news/2007/070521/full/news070521-5.html#B1

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2677413/

https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/284273main_Radiation_HS_Mod1.pdf