Are You Doing Research?(extravagaria.com)
extravagaria.com
Are You Doing Research?
http://extravagaria.com/wiki/pages/M7k9z7a/Are_You_Doing_Science.html
45 comments
Despite this, I know that a lot of professors in top labs do not like you to do reading in the laboratory. Yes - they expect you to read academic papers and know everything - but that is for your own time. When you are in the lab you do experiments (my experience was in genetics/biology). In fact I knew of a lab where you had to leave a note on your bench with your whereabouts if you were going to be away for longer that 10 minutes. These were very successful labs.
They are successful in the sense that they get lots of grant money and the professor has lots of political power in the field. They churn out papers. Thinking back over my reading, though, I'd say they're underrepresented per capita in producing really interesting science. What you are describing is also a peculiarity of biology and some parts of chemistry. It doesn't work that way in physics or in much of engineering.
However, if you're running a megalab and have lots of political clout, it's very important to keep anyone from thinking carefully and trying to look for inconsistencies. Academic empires fall from people doing things like that.
On the other hand, there were only a handful of professors at the Rockefeller University, where I went to grad school, who I respected as scientists. One of them had a Nobel prize. The rest didn't. The rest of the Nobel prize winners in that campus lousy with them you could have defunded and put out to be homeless on the streets and had no real effect on the advance of science.
However, if you're running a megalab and have lots of political clout, it's very important to keep anyone from thinking carefully and trying to look for inconsistencies. Academic empires fall from people doing things like that.
On the other hand, there were only a handful of professors at the Rockefeller University, where I went to grad school, who I respected as scientists. One of them had a Nobel prize. The rest didn't. The rest of the Nobel prize winners in that campus lousy with them you could have defunded and put out to be homeless on the streets and had no real effect on the advance of science.
I wonder who was deciding what to do at the bench and how those decision makers were spending their time. I would be willing to bet they spent a lot of work hours reading up on the latest developments.
A month at the bench can save you an hour in the library.
This is definitely a massive overstatement. I think it's true in almost any industry, that the best results come from a balance of these things.
You don't get anywhere by doing and not thinking. You don't get anywhere by thinking and not doing. Things like this don't have to be (and are not) black and white.
You don't get anywhere by doing and not thinking. You don't get anywhere by thinking and not doing. Things like this don't have to be (and are not) black and white.
Outside of a "traditional" lab setting...I don't see a conversation about research on the "job" here.
I'm curious how some of you in a startup and non-startup handle employees doing research. I'll give a quick example and then propose a personal problem for those who want to skip my dribble. ;)
EXAMPLE: I've held various levels of IT positions at various companies. Great. At times, you need to do more than just read a quick article or blog post, you need to do some serious reading (and testing) if you are doing some major changes. At times, this reading was met with dirty looks or snide remarks from upper management, but I was lucky 90% of the time and my immediate boss would back me up. For clarification, I would also spend hours reading (and testing) at home.
I understand the thought of not paying someone in corporate to read, but at some point, I think it should be reasonable to allow employees to read on the job. How do you police it? That's a different conversation.
(unless you want to read personal dribble you can stop here)
Personal anecdote: in two different jobs I became the "go to" research person. In one instance, I stopped coding, but I kept writing algorithms. Nothing at all fancy. But my teammates loved it. One specific colleague and I worked together regularly to come up with faster and cleaner ways to do some complex business logic in our web applications. I'm not much of a sports person, but everyone else was...my nickname was "special teams" and they would call me in where there was a problem.
Sure, he could have done this on his own, but I worked better as a generalist, a problem solver. I do not like coding for work, I love doing it on the side. I was in heaven, so was he. Clients were happy.
The problem? There are not many jobs, at least that I can find, where I can say "Yeah, I don't want to code, I just want to be your 'special teams' guy." I mention this to say, be careful where research takes you. I might suggest that you let it improve your skills or go full-research route. Sitting in limbo between the two isn't pretty.
I'm curious how some of you in a startup and non-startup handle employees doing research. I'll give a quick example and then propose a personal problem for those who want to skip my dribble. ;)
EXAMPLE: I've held various levels of IT positions at various companies. Great. At times, you need to do more than just read a quick article or blog post, you need to do some serious reading (and testing) if you are doing some major changes. At times, this reading was met with dirty looks or snide remarks from upper management, but I was lucky 90% of the time and my immediate boss would back me up. For clarification, I would also spend hours reading (and testing) at home.
I understand the thought of not paying someone in corporate to read, but at some point, I think it should be reasonable to allow employees to read on the job. How do you police it? That's a different conversation.
(unless you want to read personal dribble you can stop here)
Personal anecdote: in two different jobs I became the "go to" research person. In one instance, I stopped coding, but I kept writing algorithms. Nothing at all fancy. But my teammates loved it. One specific colleague and I worked together regularly to come up with faster and cleaner ways to do some complex business logic in our web applications. I'm not much of a sports person, but everyone else was...my nickname was "special teams" and they would call me in where there was a problem.
Sure, he could have done this on his own, but I worked better as a generalist, a problem solver. I do not like coding for work, I love doing it on the side. I was in heaven, so was he. Clients were happy.
The problem? There are not many jobs, at least that I can find, where I can say "Yeah, I don't want to code, I just want to be your 'special teams' guy." I mention this to say, be careful where research takes you. I might suggest that you let it improve your skills or go full-research route. Sitting in limbo between the two isn't pretty.
Based on the conditions listed at the end of the article, I think a lot of people in academia aren't doing research/science.
--former scientist.
Truth. Real scientists spend most of their time writing grants.
One of the reasons I left immediately after finishing my PhD. If I wanted to jump endlessly from platform to platform, I had Sonic the Hedgehog for that.
Look at me still talking while there's science to do.
As someone that does research full time in an academic setting, I am happy to hear someone talking about (and refuting) what I can imagine some companies calling a "research" position. I agree with him on his points, and I hope this drives home a point to some people who may be in a similar situation.
And, for the record, Richard Feynman did not do very much paper reading. I know, I know, a very special case, but I had to say it...
And, for the record, Richard Feynman did not do very much paper reading. I know, I know, a very special case, but I had to say it...
Paper reading is one of the ways of learning what else is out there. You can substitute that with talking to other people. Which Feynman did a lot, judging from the stories in his books.
Actually, now that I'm thinking about it, it seems to actually be MUCH more efficient (if you have smart people to talk to): trying to find the good papers in the middle of the sea of publications/noise is a very time consuming task.
Actually, now that I'm thinking about it, it seems to actually be MUCH more efficient (if you have smart people to talk to): trying to find the good papers in the middle of the sea of publications/noise is a very time consuming task.
Publications from reputable journals are easier to find than to find smart people firsthand who are experts in the field.
A lot of research time is spent on finding that "aha!" moment, where you everything you have thought of coalesces into a force that makes pursuing your educated guess worthwhile.
this post IS my PhD. it feels very unproductive compared to my old real job, but I wouldn't have written the piece of code I've just bashed out without all the reading (often incomprehensible) books and coding the broken things I have over the past 6 months.
I'm at my most "research productive" with a pen and paper in the cafeteria after about a month of the right stimuli!
I'm at my most "research productive" with a pen and paper in the cafeteria after about a month of the right stimuli!
Does anybody know of a realistic way to pursue research (by this definition) as a career, without becoming a grant-seeking professor (I have moral qualms about taking taxpayer money)?
For background, I'm getting a PhD in CS.
It seems like research labs are few and far between, and (unfortunately) I can't stay a grad student forever.
For background, I'm getting a PhD in CS.
It seems like research labs are few and far between, and (unfortunately) I can't stay a grad student forever.
So you have a problem in taking taxpayer money for working on science that advances all of mankind?
Instead you could work in Ad targeting/personalization, where you will help trick people into clicking on ads for products they have no interest in, while invading their privacy in borderline-illegal ways.
Or you could do for-profit research whose only purpose is to convince decision makers to buy X, regardless of the true reality. (drug companies put billions into this type of work)
Or you could work in Microsoft Research or similar environments. It is actually quite similar to academia in many regards. The funding is also mostly taken by force (of monopoly, many individuals and companies have no choice but to work in Microsoft Office due to deliberate format incompatibilities).
Instead you could work in Ad targeting/personalization, where you will help trick people into clicking on ads for products they have no interest in, while invading their privacy in borderline-illegal ways.
Or you could do for-profit research whose only purpose is to convince decision makers to buy X, regardless of the true reality. (drug companies put billions into this type of work)
Or you could work in Microsoft Research or similar environments. It is actually quite similar to academia in many regards. The funding is also mostly taken by force (of monopoly, many individuals and companies have no choice but to work in Microsoft Office due to deliberate format incompatibilities).
[deleted]
Work for a tax-credit seeking company?
I'm not sure of the situation in the US but in Canada we have something called: Scientific Research & Experimental Development (SRED) program, where the government will reimburse a company a percent of the money spent on R&D.
I'm not sure of the situation in the US but in Canada we have something called: Scientific Research & Experimental Development (SRED) program, where the government will reimburse a company a percent of the money spent on R&D.
Google Jeff Hawkins
You could consider a job in Finance researching new trading strategies. While this is certainly very far from pure research, a job in this area can satisfy most of the bullet points listed in the article.
For example, at my current job, I have plenty of time to sit around and think about new trading strategies and no deadline for producing one that makes it into production. New ideas then go through prototype and back-testing stages, and most never see the light of day. This isn't at all considered to be a problem.
The only bullet point that my job doesn't satisfy is the first-- the types of strategies I'm working on simply aren't sufficiently deep to warrant investing years in developing the initial version of any one of them.
For example, at my current job, I have plenty of time to sit around and think about new trading strategies and no deadline for producing one that makes it into production. New ideas then go through prototype and back-testing stages, and most never see the light of day. This isn't at all considered to be a problem.
The only bullet point that my job doesn't satisfy is the first-- the types of strategies I'm working on simply aren't sufficiently deep to warrant investing years in developing the initial version of any one of them.
"I have moral qualms about taking taxpayer money"
That's strange. If you do your job properly, why shouldn't you get paid even if it is by the taxpayer?
That's strange. If you do your job properly, why shouldn't you get paid even if it is by the taxpayer?
Doing research for a company has the end goal of benefitting that companies' shareholders. Doing research for a publicly funded institution has the end goal of benefitting society.
Look at the decoding of the human genome. No company has a patent on that because public institutions did it first.
Look at the decoding of the human genome. No company has a patent on that because public institutions did it first.
While patents on genetic sequences have some tricky specifications (you have to patent "non-standard" biological uses), I know Celera holds a number of patents related to the Human Genome Project. From what I recall in general biology, Celera actually used automation to outpace the public institutions even though they started later.
If you're curious, here's a patent list and some background on the company:
https://www.celera.com/celera/intellectual_property
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celera_Corporation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Venter
If you're curious, here's a patent list and some background on the company:
https://www.celera.com/celera/intellectual_property
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celera_Corporation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_Venter
Arguably, though, goals and results are two different things. "The road to hell is paved with good intentions", and all that. What does the evidence say about which benefits society more?
A company works for its shareholders, which are a very restricted group, and public funds work for society. Intuitively, the outcome is clear. It's also supported by actual data: wages stopped rising in the US in the 1970s, while productivity kept going up; this is correlated with the introduction of concepts like "shareholder value".
Google is a company that has produced tremendous benefit to society, in spite of having shareholders.
To add to the above: Pretty much all companies benefit society; it's hard to think of counter-examples.
Sure, oil companies spill oil sometimes; but they (should) have to pay for that.
Big telcos tend to have monopoly status, and exploit consumers, but they do that not because they are companies, but because they are in a patron-client relationship with the government.
Some companies produce tremendous benefit to society; others produce small benefits, which matter a lot in the aggregate.
Sure, oil companies spill oil sometimes; but they (should) have to pay for that.
Big telcos tend to have monopoly status, and exploit consumers, but they do that not because they are companies, but because they are in a patron-client relationship with the government.
Some companies produce tremendous benefit to society; others produce small benefits, which matter a lot in the aggregate.
It is always wrong to steal. Even if you think you deserve the money.
Taxation is not theft. It is a societal agreement. I know of no society, except extremely primitive hunter-gatherer societies, that has no notion of tax for public services.
And even there, you could say everyone is "stealing" from the public goods all the time. (if you hunt and eat an animal, then you have stolen it from the rest of the people).
And even there, you could say everyone is "stealing" from the public goods all the time. (if you hunt and eat an animal, then you have stolen it from the rest of the people).
When did I agree? Do I have a choice in the matter? How does one opt out? It doesn't sound like any kind of agreement I have ever heard of.
What is a public good? Who decides what is public?
If I hunt and eat an wild animal, i.e. one that was not raised on a farm, I am not stealing it from anyone. By your definition the only way I am not stealing it is if I kill it and divide equally to everyone.
What is a public good? Who decides what is public?
If I hunt and eat an wild animal, i.e. one that was not raised on a farm, I am not stealing it from anyone. By your definition the only way I am not stealing it is if I kill it and divide equally to everyone.
This choice is decided in a democratic process. Countries with very high levels of taxation and public services (e.g. scandinavian countries) have earned a high level of trust from their voters that the money is put to good use.
To pay less taxes you could either relocate to some place with less taxes (this is quite possible in the US, since state and city taxes vary). Or you could work democratically to change the system. If you really want to live in any place approximating anarcho-capitalism, you would have to move to a 3rd world country.
If one could opt out of taxes, that would be the end of the tax system. Of course no individual wants to pay for the public services. Everybody want the other guy to pay! In the same manner, you could ask why one cannot opt out of the penal system. --- As to the "hunting as theft" issue: as long as there are plenty of animals to hunt, you are not taking from anyone. That was the state of affairs 100,000 years ago. When resources are limited they must be managed/taxed in some way. Humanity has not solved most of these issues at this point. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
So you could ask: when did I agree to those japanese fishing vessels depleting the fisheries next to my shores, do I have a choice in the matter? Their fishing raises the price of wild fish and serves as a de-facto sushi tax, only you don't get to eat any of the sushi...
My point is, we are not in the paleolithic period anymore. The world is too complex and resources are too few for fully individualistic economic philosophies.
To pay less taxes you could either relocate to some place with less taxes (this is quite possible in the US, since state and city taxes vary). Or you could work democratically to change the system. If you really want to live in any place approximating anarcho-capitalism, you would have to move to a 3rd world country.
If one could opt out of taxes, that would be the end of the tax system. Of course no individual wants to pay for the public services. Everybody want the other guy to pay! In the same manner, you could ask why one cannot opt out of the penal system. --- As to the "hunting as theft" issue: as long as there are plenty of animals to hunt, you are not taking from anyone. That was the state of affairs 100,000 years ago. When resources are limited they must be managed/taxed in some way. Humanity has not solved most of these issues at this point. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
So you could ask: when did I agree to those japanese fishing vessels depleting the fisheries next to my shores, do I have a choice in the matter? Their fishing raises the price of wild fish and serves as a de-facto sushi tax, only you don't get to eat any of the sushi...
My point is, we are not in the paleolithic period anymore. The world is too complex and resources are too few for fully individualistic economic philosophies.
Get yourself into one of the big corps with a huge R&D section?
I know IBM have a pretty big research organisation, but how easy it is to get there, and how secure the positions are I have no idea.
I don't really see why taxpayer funded research is bad, and I say that as a taxpayer not a researcher.
I know IBM have a pretty big research organisation, but how easy it is to get there, and how secure the positions are I have no idea.
I don't really see why taxpayer funded research is bad, and I say that as a taxpayer not a researcher.
May I ask why you have moral problems with being paid by the taxpayer? To me it seems funding science is one of the better things the government does with its revenue.
not supporting unknown browsers by blocking just suck. Baaad website ;-)
I'm interested in how they managed to cleanly remove the entire meat of the blog post without damaging any other aspect of the site. Is JavaScript really that ... petty ... or did they have to work hard to achieve that effect?
Judging by what w3m and lynx show me, they're doing User-Agent sniffing to serve up pages. Isn't that a violation of the Geneva Convention at this point?
Judging by what w3m and lynx show me, they're doing User-Agent sniffing to serve up pages. Isn't that a violation of the Geneva Convention at this point?
"Your browser is not supported.
The latest version of Safari, Chrome, Firefox or Internet Explorer is required ..."
They have no good reason behind whitelisting browsers.
They have no good reason behind whitelisting browsers.
Also:
> The latest version of Safari, Chrome, Firefox or Internet Explorer is required
I see two browsers on a fairly fast release schedule. Do they really update their User-Agent filter on Firefox's release cycle? On Chrome's release cycle? At that point, they might as well be specifying patch levels; pick a minimum version and keep with it.
Or, you know, design a site up to modern standards, because if you absolutely need everything in the HTML5 spec to host a blog you might as well actually listen to a web dev once in a while.
> The latest version of Safari, Chrome, Firefox or Internet Explorer is required
I see two browsers on a fairly fast release schedule. Do they really update their User-Agent filter on Firefox's release cycle? On Chrome's release cycle? At that point, they might as well be specifying patch levels; pick a minimum version and keep with it.
Or, you know, design a site up to modern standards, because if you absolutely need everything in the HTML5 spec to host a blog you might as well actually listen to a web dev once in a while.
Broken in android for me too. (htc desire, gingerbread, Browser)
Not all of us are on the iphone. I guess the audience is being selected.
Not all of us are on the iphone. I guess the audience is being selected.
Things might be different at (say) IBM Research Zürich, doing work on atomic force microscopy, but that sort of thing seems to be the exception rather than the rule in industrial R&D. I don't know if I would have expected to see hardcore science at Sun Labs where the article writer's friend worked.