"Big science" (academia) is broken

[Thrombus]

http://theweek.com/articles/618141/big-science-broken

Great article. Big Academia has been a giant money vacuum for decades now with very little to show for it, likely stifling true science. I especially think the following are poignant:

Government funding bodies and peer review bodies are inevitably staffed by the most hallowed (read: out of touch) practitioners in the field.

The tenure process ensures that in order to further their careers, the youngest scientists in a given department must kowtow to their elders' theories or run a significant professional risk.

Peer review isn't any good at keeping flawed studies out of major papers, but it can be deadly efficient at silencing heretical views

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[yaah]

I don't think I would agree that Big Academia stifles true science. But a lot of times the science produced isn't really what it should be, so I agree with that part. And I agree that the funding bodies and peer review bodies probably need to diversify, and they probably limit some of the true research with high potential. But that is difficult to change. I have no idea how to get to a better system. If industry does more of it, the tough questions probably won't be answered unless they are potentially really lucrative and protected.

 

[LADoc00]

The field I used to do most of my research in was completely dominated by 2 groups, one at UCSD and another at MGH. You pretty much had to agree with 1 of those 2 factions in the background section of your papers to get a shot a pub in a real journal even though my entire team thought both were fundamentally flawed. Kinda soured me on academia in general but the massive amount of booze and loose women more than made up for any reservations I had at the time...then I woke up a few years later in cold sweat and realized I needed to actually earn a living.

 

[weirdsci1985]

The "solution" that the author presents is ridiculous. The PhD has been a relatively consistent bar of achievement for nearly all scientists in the modern era. Certainly during the 20th century, a period characterized by unprecedented progress in biomedical science. While it is true that academic science will undergo significant changes in the future as a result of the internet, any suggestions to "abolish the PhD" are at this point both laughable and potentially disastrous.

 

[Unsatisfactory]

but the massive amount of booze and loose women more than made up for any reservations

You sir are my idol.