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

In defense of science, for science's sake

https://conexaopolitica.com.br/ultimas/brazilian-scientists-and-academics-write-an-open-letter-on-the-science-of-the-coronavirus-pandemic/

In my previous blog I mentioned this letter from Brazilian scientists, who were speaking out against those who profess to speak for science.  I put a similar post on Facebook as well, and someone shared my post, which resulted in the thread below.  



Tim shared a post
May 28

    Dave Bad Person added a post

    May 26

Some scientists in Brazil decided to speak out against anyone who professes to speak for science with regard to the pandemic. And how did they do this? By speaking for science!

At the end of the article each scientist who contributed to it is measured by how many citations they have, not by what contribution they've made to society. This is a perfect example of how academia has become a self-referential system where researchers chase citations and kudos from fellow researchers, rather than trying to solve real world problems. And don't you dare "dishonestly usurp science's prestige", because these children of the wealthy, these glorified hobbyists, these unqualified educators, they want to keep science for themselves, to be conducted only at universities, only by people with PhDs, to be hidden away in obscure academic journals that hardly anyone reads. They know science belongs to everyone, but they want to keep a monopoly on it, solely for their own benefit. Wankers.

Nelly
This post is bullshit Tim. Why would you put this out in the world? Are you anti-science now? Have you always been? Citations tell us that researchers are published and do peer-reviewed science.

Tim
By no means anti-science.
I like diverse opinion.
Dave is a very cynical and smart dude who has been deep inside academia, intelligentsia, and corporate science when he isn't blowing himself up in the desert.
He could probably be a speaker for Science On Tap for any number of topics. BTW, he makes a mean curry.
I posted the original article and he reposted into his timeline (you see top level here) and thought this was an interesting take.
Personally this was the first time I had seen an academic touting how many citations they had. Didn't realize that was a badge of honor of sorts which makes sense.
But I also see how it can be like a circle jerk of instagram influencers liking each other's work.
An interesting counter to my initial post.

This sub thread between Tim and Nelly went on further but veered off the topic.


Raymon
The interwebs distruption bots are strong with this one.



My response to Nelly

Dave Bad Person
I'm not anti-science, I'm anti-academia. I had a 17 year career studying and working in universities around the world as a biomedical researcher, and for the last 14 years I've worked in corporate research & development in the electronics engineering industry in San Diego, California. There is much I could say about academia, more than can be said here, but the core of it is in that post. The fact is that most of the research going on in the world doesn't happen at universities, nor is it conducted by people with PhDs (I have a PhD). University academics tend to think they have the monopoly on science and scientific research. They don't. I understand that universities are important educational institutions which produce highly trained professionals for society, but that is an entirely separate enterprise from the scientific research conducted at universities. Actually, most universities don't require their faculty to even have qualifications in teaching, which really just makes them hobbyist educators, amateurs. As for the research, there are currently about 2.5 million scholarly articles published each year in over 28,000 academic journals, most of them with a tiny readership. Most scientific journal articles are read in full by no more than 10 people. We currently produce more scientific data than we can ever use. Meanwhile, most of the progress in the last 25 years has come not from science, but from engineering. Science needs to be put to work for society, not hoarded away in the musty halls of academia, to be conducted only by those who've paid their dues to be part of the system. In the mid-20th century the investment in university research clearly resulted in a good return for society, but that's not so certain anymore.

Sean
Do you think this quantity-over-quality trend has anything to do with the move away from publicly funded basic science to corporate work that focuses on niches and profit opportunities?

Sean
My biggest concerns about this article are 1. It doesn't really suggest an opposing viewpoint, but rather undermines the credibility of science in general while 2. supporting the political views of the ruling administration of Brazil, which has a hard-right stance bordering on authoritarianism and has been seen to spread propaganda and silence opposing voices.

Dave Bad Person
Sean, firstly, you seem to embrace the false dichotomy of basic vs. applied research. You can do both. As for corporate niche research, academic research is even more niche, fringe, and offbeat. And if it's not profitable or at least useful then it adds no value to society. If that leads to quantity over quality then it's just producing more of something we can't use.

Dave Bad Person
Sean, it does not undermine the credibility of science at all. Science still works, it just doesn't have to be owned and controlled by university academics simply because they consider themselves the only people who should be conducting and speaking for science. Acadmics don't "own" science, it doesn't "belong" to them, it belongs to everyone. Questioning the authority and control of science by academics is something I'll never stop doing.
I'm not supporting the Brazilian political system with my post, not in any way.
And in the end, what did the Brazilian scientist's letter achieve? Nothing. Nothing except another tally mark on the citation count for those involved in writing it. "Publish or perish", the old adage of academia, as if reaching an annual quota of publications and getting kudos from your fellow reseachers is more important than solving real world problems. Society does not allow academics enormous freedoms just so they can engage in frivolous nonsense, while society gets nothing in return.

Sean
Dave Bad Person, I understand that basic and applied research are both important and not necessarily distinct. What I mean is that basic research with public accountability and no specific commercial application is on the decline while applied research is being done primarily by corporations with a profit motive. That doesn't necessarily lead to bad science, but it does select what kinds of science get done.
As for the article itself, it reads like an ad hominem attack on the researchers behind the current understanding of this pandemic and the recommendations being issued and not a refutation of the science with better science.

Sean
Dave Bad Person, I also disagree with the idea that science with no commercial application isn't valuable. Not much money can be made at this point from the discoveries in astrophysics over recent decades, but the understanding of our universe has huge value, especially over the arc of history. Medicines that cure chronic conditions rapidly would be less profitable than ones made to treat symptoms for long periods of time but I think we, as a species, are better served in the long term by the former.

Dave Bad Person
Basic research with public accountability. What kind of accountability are we talking about, citation counts?
Well I have a "whole" four publications in biomedical research that have been cited hundreds of times. Does anyone care? Did they make a difference in the world? No.
I also helped invent the LTE technology that billions of people around the world use everyday on their cell phones to communicate, interact, entertain themselves, and be productive. Does it make a difference in he world? Hell yes. I'm also currently working to help invent the various technologies that will make 5G work. Do you think it will it make a difference too?
But I guess astrophysics is going to be super valuable some day, because the goals and utility of astrophysics is...??? How many times a day do you use your smart phone's high speed wireless data connection to the internet, and how many times a day do you use astrophysics? Maybe you should get to work on those disease cures, you could solve important problems AND make profit.

Sean
Dave Bad Person, Public accountability meaning research that's funded by and conducted primarily for the good of the public, not a private entity. I don't quite understand the hostility coming through in your comments here. I guess your commitment to the deeply important field of consumer electronics is commendable? I don't deny that communication is an important tool for society, but really man? Science without a big payout isn't worth it?

Raymon
Dave Bad Person, you had me, until you said profit. One day, far far in the future, profit, money even won't be needed. Collective efforts, for the common good will become the norm. Maybe I'm a delusional snowflake, but name one time that star-trek ever showed the exchange of money?

Raymon
Oh, except the foriengi, but they were dicks.

Dave Bad Person
Sure. Science without a payout isn't worth it to me. I did that career for 17 years and at the end of all those years of study, hard work, and dedication I was getting paid barely more than minimum wage, had crappy benefits, and lived on the brink of poverty, same as I'd grown up. It was completely unrewarding both financially and intellectually. Meanwhile most of the PhDs I worked with were from fairly wealthy families, and thus money and employment had never been major concerns in their lives, and so they'd had the luxury of being able to chase their frivolous dreams and bizarre interests without concern for where it may lead. You both seem to have the same mental illness as most academics:  a belief that basking in the glory of science is more noble than making a meaningful contributing to society, that science should be purely for academics, and that being coddled and isolated in the university system is better than having to go out in the real world and adapt and compete in the workforce. Maybe your naive idealistic moneyless utopia will materialize one day? Be ready for the disappointment when you realize it's not coming and you based your life philosophy on a stupid science fiction TV show for nerds.

That's all for now.

- Dave Bad Person

Academic Wanker Scum

https://conexaopolitica.com.br/ultimas/brazilian-scientists-and-academics-write-an-open-letter-on-the-science-of-the-coronavirus-pandemic/

Some scientists in Brazil decided to speak out against anyone who professes to speak for science with regard to the coronavirus pandemic. And how did they do this? By speaking for science!

As you can see at the end of the article, each scientist's worth is measured by how many citations they have, not by what contribution they've made to society, which in my experience is little-to-nothing for most of them. This letter is actually a perfect example of how academia has become a self-referential system where researchers chase citations and kudos from fellow researchers, rather than trying to solve real world problems. And don't you dare "dishonestly usurp science's prestige", because these children of the wealthy, these glorified hobbyists, these unqualified educators, they want to keep science for themselves, to be conducted only at universities, only by people with PhDs, to be hidden away in obscure academic journals that hardly anyone reads.

The letter even goes further to say that "no one can speak for science". Yet here they are speaking for science because they think they own it. Science belongs to everyone, not just university assholes who want to keep the monopoly on science for their own benefit and hide it away from the public. These people have the delusional notion that they're "changing the world" with their irrelevant publications. And what did they change with this letter? Nothing. It was merely a matter of "publish or perish". They simply have to say something because that's what they do, they talk a lot and change nothing. Academic wanker scum. 

- 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