There has been a real shift in the culture of academia over the last 10-15 years that coincides with what I'm starting to call "the rise of the Twitter Prof". The twitter thing is both literal and also a stand-in for similar junk like TED talks.
IMO, the US needs to clean house. We should restructure our research funding so that it goes to motivated and curious people instead of politically connected PIs. This means totally disconnecting NSF/NIH/DARPA funding from the university apparatus. Treat academic affiliation -- and the associated albatross of "overhead" -- as a hindrance to grant applications as opposed to a requirement.
Imagine how much better the caliber of our research will be if we pay grad students $100K instead of paying them $35K and their university $65K. We could 10x our research spend by giving money to the right people instead of giving it to people who can stomach and afford giving 2/3rds of their funding to sad excuses for institutions that American universities have become.
At the very least, tax payers need to stop bailing out student loan debt while simultaneously funding multiple annual week-long conferences in Hawaii and Europe for professors who scoff at their teaching assignments.
Yes, the university taking 60-70% is almost highway robbery, but it is hard to completely disassociate from them. For one, the university can through economies of scale reduce the cost of setting up and running experimental facilities. Moreover, one usually finds motivated researchers in academic settings (I am anticipating dissent here, since that could be because of the funding flowing only through Universities). However talented and motivated researchers usually find other work situations which while to fully aligning to their erstwhile research interests, pay for a good life. Those who really have the passion that exceeds the mundane normalisation of drive ( also called life per some definition) usually seek refuge in the academic setting. So, yes if we can set up labs like the old Bell labs or find a way to replicate the tenure model of universities, taking funding away from the univ mechanism and giving it to individual unaffiliated researchers won't be practical. But even if that can be achieved, you have just replaced universities with a slightly different structure. Better option is to trim the fat and realign priorities at universities, which is also easier said than done. Cushy administrator jobs, student housing mansions with 5 star facilities, large stadium colosseum all should go.. But systemic reasons, societal perception, need to justify legacy admission all factor in here as strong headwinds.
Does anybody really know where the overhead money of top places end up ?
Some institutions (eg famous ones) have near 100% overhead. Overhead sounds reasonable for example to maintain IT and core facilities, but I have a suspicion that a lot of it is wasted in a black hole of unknown function generically labelled “admin”
Most of the overhead goes towards admins. But it is also important to remember that many universities have multi-billion dollar endowments. It's been explained to me that "I don't know what endowments are for" when I've pointed out that my (not top 10) university could indefinitely pay for all US student tuition (and 90% of foreign) on the interest of our endowment at a 5% yearly growth. So I'm still not sure what endowments are for considering that there are 15 schools with endowments that are over 1m/student. So yeah, I still have no idea what endowments are for.
I'm not in the US, but from what it sounds like, the situation isn't much different where I live.
A surprising amount of overhead goes to employees in accounting who perform some black magic so that everyone on staff is payed by some combination of projects. Whether someone actually works on said projects is irrelevant of course.
If I had a factory with 100 people assembling my product, or a sales team with 100 people selling it, I'd be quite happy to only budget for the cost of another 100 people to pay my rent and run my IT, payroll, accounting, janitorial services, maintaining my machinery...
I get the impression that modern universities have five or ten other employees for each teacher/researcher, which assuming everyone gets the same pay implies 500-1000% overhead, or subsidy from sources other than grants.
100% is a bit of an exaggeration. I’ve heard of one place with a 100% overhead rate and it was for something very specialized (marine research vessels, which probably do eat money). Everywhere else I know of is near 50 percent, and this includes “famous” places (Yale, McGill, MIT, Georgetown, etc).
The overhead rates are supposed to reflect the University’s actual costs and are negotiated with the government, so I suppose you could try to make a FOIA request for them.
Most universities have their negotiated Facilities and Administrative (F&A) rates posted online via their Sponsored Research Office. For example, Harvard charges a 68% indirect rate and Stanford about 58%. The public R1 institutions I’ve done business with charge 40-50%.
This doesn’t paint the whole picture though as sometimes additional overhead costs (eg. healthcare benefits) can be budgeted as Fringe Benefits for personnel working directly on the project. In that situation, the F&A rate would stack on top of those costs.
If your proposal is to make all grant applications blind with respect to grant writer information, it is an idea that has a lot of unintended side effects. Firstly, not every field, in fact, most fields are not Math or CS by definition. It is certainly the most popular in this crowd, especially these days, but without proper facilities most of science cannot be done. So, making an application for grant anonymous, you have dramatically increased the risk of nothing useful coming out of the proposal. A talented independent grant writer (who may or may not be a great scientist) now has a much higher chance of getting the award. But if he doesn't have the ability to execute that great idea the project will fail. Most often idea is aspirational with no detail, the breakthrough comes in only during execution. Execution requires a team and facilities. This is why things like MURI (multi-univeristy-research-initiative) were created. Also, a lot of the grants are earmarked for early career researchers, without a lot of experience in proposal writing, which also will go away if the awards are anonymous. I am sure there are other points I am missing and also there may be ways to remove the shortcomings, but I don't see a clean and easy path forward with this.
As for math and CS, I am quite positive at least in Math most work is done by individual professors/post-docs/students without much involvement of grants. In fact, a lot of universities do reduce the overhead charged to purely intellectual pursuit with no major facilities usage kind of departments. Not sure all math or cs research will qualify for that because of the HPC requirements, but the option is out there. Universities as signals for funding and research success really appears to me like the best of a bad option set.
> So, making an application for grant anonymous, you have dramatically increased the risk of nothing useful coming out of the proposal
To me this sounds not as a critique of the proposed system, but rather defense of the current system.
Science is underpinned by the scientific method which essentially is "form hypothesis -> create controlled environment -> test hypothesis". I do not want to start debate around expected outcome rations, but negative result (hypothesis being false) is perfectly normal outcome of the scientific method. Current system tries to defend against rent seeking by being heavily biased towards positive outcomes. This encourages heavily incremental research, which a bit paradoxically can be also seen as rent seeking. Furthermore, it also encourages low quality science (like p hacking and similar stuff) and discourages publication of negative outcomes, possibly leading to hitting the same dead ends multiple times.
Blind grant proposals could reduce bias towards "past performance" decreasing ratio of positive results, and encourage "riskier", more brave hypotheses to be formed and tested.
Past performance as a metric in grant application encourages research optimization. Some may see this as a good thing, but it discourages early-to-mid career researchers (and even late in their careers) from pursuing something non-obvious. Safe science is more often than not optimization and edge case/condition testing.
I think you're missing the point. Negative results is not the issue. If your hypothesis involves NMR, you need access to an NMR machine to test it. Most people outside of a university don't have that and so would fail to execute.
However, your argument is still orthogonal to grant blindness itself. Mere affiliation with with research institution does not guarantee (although highly increases the likelihood, I can agree on that) access to certain research instruments.
This is the thing I have tried to explore in my previous comment. Current model practically revolves around researcher "fame" and grant board "knowing" their [lab's] ability to execute technical part of the research. This creates some perverse incentives. Naturally, grant boards become more inclined (consciously or not) to favor certain institutions and researchers, giving more grants, further increasing "competitiveness". Researchers become disincentivized to publish negative results and are incentivized to resort to data hacking and irreproducible science. This sure does give rise to the OP's mentioned Twitter prof or "trust me bro" science. There is much more politics in science than we publicly admit.
Current process does not actually evaluate grant proposal on technical ability to execute, this is left for institutions "underwriting" proposal. We could start evaluating technical ability regardless of whether grant applications are blind or not. If peer review meant "peers got roughly similar basic results in basic reproduction" instead of "someone in the field looked at the final draft" I guess we could have blind proposals with advantages of current system without its major political disadvantages.
I can agree that open process does help filter out researchers underqualified to do the research in question, but it does come at a certain cost. Ability to weed out underqualified teams does not necessarily require current process, i.e. this can be achieved by other means.
Just a slight clarification/correction/question: as far as I can tell, M in MURI is for multidisciplinary. That means the DoD is seeking interdisciplinary research (and maybe intra-university collaboration), not explicitly inter-university work -- is this correct?
There may be separate multidisciplinary initiatives, but "Multi" in MURI definitely stands for inter university initiatives. All the MURI grants I have seen (not many and long ago to be honest) were multiple universities and one area of research.
> At the very least, tax payers need to stop bailing out student loan debt while simultaneously funding multiple annual week-long conferences in Hawaii and Europe for professors who scoff at their teaching assignments.
I think this is missing the forest for the trees. These aren't the reason schools cost so much and in turn why student debt is so high. Meeting with other scholars internationally has been happening for over a hundred years. European schools often travel to America a lot because conferences are often here, and their costs aren't what American universities are. Despite having similar levels of research output. The high cost is for other reasons. This also isn't why professors ignore their teaching requirements (find time to do both research, which is the higher priority, and teach. You sure can't in 40hrs)
As to the rest of the comment, I am in a lot more agreement with. I don't even think grad student pay needs to even be that high, it would just be nice enough if I didn't need to rely on internships for my cost of living. If I had enough money to pay off my undergrad loans instead of letting them rack up tens of thousands of dollars more.
But one thing I would highly argue, is that research is investing in your own country. Academia is a common place for innovation to be derived from. It is no surprise given you put a bunch of smart people together that are passionate about learning that they make new things. Especially considering how research is literal innovation. I think there's a large argument to be made about how this is a national security issue, and can be justification for diverting military budget for non-weapons based research. War is about economics after all. Really it is about a lot of things besides the actual fighting parts. Innovation has been a key element in America's (and many others) success. It is weird to think that we wouldn't place this as one of our highest strategic assets.
>> At the very least, tax payers need to stop bailing out student loan debt while simultaneously funding multiple annual week-long conferences in Hawaii and Europe for professors who scoff at their teaching assignments.
> I think this is missing the forest for the trees.
Not at all. People have a sense of right and wrong, and this fact offends them far more than the nebulous task of assess the effectiveness of research.
I have a PhD and spent a lot of time within and interfacing with academia. I think even the average science-skeptic congressperson massively over-estimates both the short-term and long-term value of the sort of research that happens in most of academia. But we're probably not going to agree on that.
So, see, we can go back and forth all day about the relative merits of academic research. And there's always cover because most congressional people -- let alone voters -- don't know enough to have a really informed opinion.
If I go to a congressional staffer and complain about the NSF or NIH, not much is going to change unless the candidate already agrees with me and is passionate about the issue. They know voters don't care.
But I can go to a congressional staffer and ask: why does your candidate support bailing out student loan debt while simultaneously funding multiple annual week-long conferences in Hawaii and Europe for professors who scoff at their teaching assignments?
And THAT question is going to be viewed very differently, because it's something that could anger voters who don't have the time and attention to vote on the basis of whatever useless crud the NSF is funding this year.
This is exactly right. Just like it's better to think of McDonald's as a real estate company with a food business on the side, these days it's better to think of big state schools as mechanisms for ingesting federal research dollars, with an education business on the side. (Never mind that state schools shouldn't be education businesses _at all_, they should be _public services_)
As an example, MIT spends about 16% of its revenue on undergraduates; undergrad tuition is about 14% of revenue.* Remarkably those percentages were about the same when I was an undergraduate there 40 years ago.
Basically MIT is an enormous government research lab with a small school bolted on the side. This was a deliberate structure thanks to James Conant and Karl Taylor Compton working for the government in WWII.
* honestly I’m astonished they are willing to run that minor (and by a lot of faculty reviled) operation at a small loss.
Interesting that you bring up WWII. There's a theory that says that US's big research funding agencies are deliberately set up the way that they are because the US government freaked the _fuck_ out upon realizing that a bunch of nerds could go from zero to nuclear bombs in ~10 years. So, these big bureaucracies were set up to, in effect, keep tabs on physicists. (I first heard of this from a talk from Kim Stanley Robinson of Red Mars fame, and more recently Ministry for the Future. It's on YouTube somewhere but it's a bit hard to find, it was a seminar he gave at Duke University some 15 years ago.)
Then, some 35 years later came the Bayh-Dole act, which however well-meaning it might have been, really provided the incentives for universities to turn into fed money capturing enterprises. The rest is history.
You don’t need a conspiracy theory — Compton and especially Conant were clear about the model they wanted to set up and why. It was well documented in memos, planning, and position papers.
This was before the Manhattan project was authorized.
Do you have a source for that cost attribution? Based on my time there (slightly more recent than yours), that breakdown feels roughly correct. However, I've been trying to find similar information and have found it difficult even for public universities.
The institution publishes its budget. 10 seconds of DDG search found this page: https://vpf.mit.edu/about-vpf/publications Looks like tuition is becoming less important over the Covid period and grad+ug is down to 9% of revenue.
They have a nice presentation with various charts and such which is where I get this info myself. I don’t know if it’s online. I forget how I got it when I was in school but now the people who come visit from the development office bring it with them because they know I’m interested.
Specialization is the greatest source of efficiency.
Almost every organization has more people in support roles than in line positions. If not directly, then indirectly. If the "overhead" is not high enough, the people who are supposed to do line work have to waste their time as incompetent janitors and secretaries. That's a very common situation in universities, which employ many administrators for regulatory reasons but often don't have the money to hire enough support personnel.
If you want to pay grad students $100k, then the grant must be $165k. Or maybe $180k to allow the grad student to focus more on their research. Maybe the sum can be a bit less, if you manage to reduce the regulations and reporting requirements. But then you have to accept that a larger fraction of grant recipients will misuse the money or spend it on research many taxpayers would consider frivolous.
In CS this is just false. Nearly all of the CS research we fund could be done in inexpensive office space with no administrators. The one exception is DARPA-funded robotics research, and even then it's only a subset.
In wet lab disciplines the story is more complicated. But there are many possible configurations that are more efficient than the current university-as-gatekeeper system.
You can do many kinds of research with minimal overhead, as long as everyone is self-employed and your funding comes with minimal restrictions and reporting requirements.
I did that for a couple of years as a CS postdoc on a private grant. I believe my overhead rate was 15-20%, which was mostly health and other insurances. To reach that, I did accounting and taxes on my own. I also had a loose affiliation with a university, so I didn't have to pay for office space or computing.
If you start using paid services, hire employees, and accept more restrictive grants, your overhead rate can easily climb above 50%.
It's not just in academia: I've worked on lots of scientific and technical grants for industry: https://seliger.com/2017/03/28/write-scientific-technical-gr..., and the RFPs often indicate a need to claim all sorts of things. Cure cancer! Lead to the complete end of fossil fuel reliance! Revolutionize computing!
At the same time, few applicants, or applications, seem to be punished for grandiose, but not completely impossible, claims. Grant making follows the golden rule: https://seliger.com/2007/12/06/studio-executives-starlets-an...: he who has the gold, makes the rules.
They're an insignificantly-tiny fraction of EU research funds, but I'm shocked how often I come across an outstanding project (nix, chips4makers, betrusted, libresoc, searx, OTR, osmocom, qubes, sourcehut, wireguard) that they funded.
Whatever awesomeness the NSF had in the 1970s-1980s died somewhere in the mid-1990s, and appears to have been reincarnated with these guys.
IMO, we need to regulate online advertising. By allowing advertisers to fund websites and apps, we allow them to be used as platforms for mass hype and dissemination of "junk" (bait).
The "Twitter prof" is the academic who has learnt to master the advertiser-funded hype machine.
The internet should be an advertising-free internetwork as it once was.
Everyone reading this comment and enjoying this forum is using a non-commercial website. There is no advertiser funding.
When we fail regulate so-called "tech" companies, we watch the value of the internetwork continually degraded to nothing more than a means to advertise and disseminate "junk".
This is a commercial website and the advertiser funding it is called Y Combinator. It advertises its own VC business and posts launch ads / job ads for its funded companies here.
The rise of the Twitter Prof has nothing to do with Twitter’s funding model.
"Advertiser-funded" as used here means the income from advertising is necessary for the continued existence of the website.
Companies advertising open position on HN do not pay for the ads. HN does not rely on imcome from ads to run the website.
(Now, one could argue that HN is owned by YC, YC makes money from "tech" companies and "tech" companies generally use online ads or ad services as their "business model". Fair enough. In response, I would point out that HN does not need surveillance, data collection or ads in order to survive. HN's "content" comes from from submitters and commenters. These individuals are unpaid. Unlike sites run by "tech" companies, the users generating the "content" are not paid from online advertising revenue.)
This is happening in europe too, perhaps more, given that EU agencies dont care much about the long-term impact of work beyond the reporting requrements. PR-savvy people are guaranteed a stream of funding by virtue of their prior funding.
I think the whole idea of small-grant-based funding in academia has outgrown its usefulness. Just pay people directly and let them work on whatever they like.
DARPA is already very willing to fund work outside of academia. Every meeting I’ve been to has included consortia led by a big company like HRL Labs or Teledyne as well as smaller companies, sometimes even 1-2 person shops, that work in the particular field. The overhead rates at those big companies are massive though.
> if we pay grad students $100K instead of paying them $35K
That would make a big difference I think. Especially in fields where private sector pay much more. That being said, research remains attractive for the brightest minds and there's no shortage of great candidates yet.
I'm not an expert on the German research landscape, but I think it works a bit like that there, that the big shots work at Max Planck, Helmholtz,... institutes. Would be funny if the US followed Germany there, since the current academic/research setup in the US was basically imported from Germany in the early 20th century.
Is higher education anything more than a parasitical industry that takes whatever money is given to it from government, military and corporations, in order to return whatever studies are requested?
> And where does the actual language come from? Millar is already at work on his next project to answer that question, too. In some preliminary data analysis of all previous NIH calls for grant applications, he found that all of the hype adjectives identified in this month’s study also appear in information from the NIH telling people how to apply for grants. It may be the case that the rise in hype words in applications has happened, in part, because regulators planted the seeds.
(Emphasis mine)
This is the essential point, buried in the article. Granting agencies cause a lot of this nonsense. The grant assessment criteria they provide will literally say things like: “demonstrate the work is novel and transformational.”
"R01, R03, R21, R34. Reviewers will provide an overall impact score to reflect their assessment of the likelihood for the project to exert a sustained, powerful influence on the research field(s) involved..."(Emphasis mine).
There are whole sections called "Innovation" and "Significance."
Yeah, as soon as grant agencies add scoring criteria like "+1 point: does this application support sustainable development?", for a weird reason every grant from theoretical math to astronomy will have some paragraph with "sustainable" as the main keyword.
This. And then applicants who tell the reviewers explicitly the information they need using phrases like "this application is innovative because..." tend to be more successful than those who let the reviewer guess.
As is clear in this thread people want bang for their buck. So applications are asked to justify what bang they will provide, and the successful ones tell it.
Interesting finding. An immediate question that I would have was how did the language in the rejected proposals change? If we see more 'groundbreaking' adjectives today, this could mean different things: either the NHS has shifted towards preferring applications with more sensationalist language, or the authors have collectively shifted towards such language (or a mix of the two). Would be interesting to look at next (since they seem to be doing a series of papers on this topic).
Reduce the number of PIs until grant paylines go back to ~ 30%. Institutions that don't play ball—that hire grant-seeking PIs at a greater than sustainable rate—should be penalized. First, by reduction of indirect costs, then by making applicants affiliated with that institution progressively ineligible for various funding mechanisms. Once the applicant pool is back in balance with the money pool, there can be more focus on science and less on salesmanship.
Alternatively, give more money to the NSF. It's a tiny sliver of our federal budget and is a much more effective use of money than a lot of other short-term solutions we fund.
I agree that increasing public research funding is a good idea, but it can only fix the payline & hype problem (increase efficiency) temporarily, until universities once again expand their departments. For example, the NIH budget increased by ~ 2.5× between 98 and 03, which prompted many universities to form new biomedical departments. In a way, that's exactly the intended effect. The point of increasing funding was to do more science, and to a degree more researchers = more science. But hiring out-competed the funding increase and ultimately created the problems highlighted in the posted article. The capacity to consume money can always grow faster than funding.
On Hacker News we often talk about bad incentives in science from an individual's perspective, but the main incentive problem is at the organizational level. From an organizational perspective, every additional grant-seeking researcher is still a marginal benefit, no matter how little time they actually spend on research. E.g., even a 99% marketing 1% research split (an exaggerated ratio, only for illustrative purposes) means adding another "researcher" is still a marginal benefit to the organization even though it wastes most of public's money on institutional growth rather than science. The equilibrium state is a near-total focus on grant-seeking and marketing. To ensure the public's money is spent effectively, funding agencies need to pay more attention to designing their policies to counteract this tendency.
I love a good cynical take as much as the next HN reader, but as a researcher working in the environmental/climate space many of us are using these words because the are true. Sure there are some folks I consider full of buzzwords and light on substance but I think it's warranted for scientists to make "inflated" claims to get their research noticed. Yes, there are structural problems in academia and research funding that do need to be fixed, but I'm not sure this shift in language is completely a symptom of it. People are actually dying out there and we are pleading to get funding to try to help.
> but I think it's warranted for scientists to make "inflated" claims to get their research noticed.
Researchers are scientists, not marketing-people. If you really want to impact policy, go into politics. Otherwise it's an authoritarian twist on what democracy is
What you are doing by makign a random list of events is even a travesty of science. How do these events compare to the past.
How do you attribute causality in each of these cases? Just because you know there is a "force" doesn't mean you know the extent to which that force influenced these outcomes, as there have always been extreme weather events.
In prior years I heard a big emphasis on climate vs weather, to inform the public that just because they had a cold winter, doesn't mean that the earth itself is cooling. It's a longer term trend, and it's hard to attribute individual events to it. I think that's the correct and nuanced view.
The view I have seen most recently in the media is "every extreme weather event that supports is evidence of long term climate change, every one that does not is short term weather". Are you promoting that view?
I am a colleague, and IMHO in our community people uses "transformation" very often without any real transformational substance. It would be nice to connect! (mail in about)
Not really, but even if it was, what meaningful difference would it make? You can see the list if the terms in the article, and it's hard to deny that they are very political.
My ad blocker might be hiding the list you’re talking about. I see a graphic with “Most incresed hype adjectives” but I can’t imagine that’s the one you mean.
The fact that these terms are political isn't controversial. In fact, you can trace back the popularization of some of them in political discourse to landmark SCOTUS decisions and executive orders. See [1], for example.
[1]: https://www.thirteen.org/wnet/supremecourt/rights/landmark_r... "The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision written by Justice Lewis Franklin Powell, ruled that a state may constitutionally consider race as a factor in its university admissions to promote educational diversity, but only if considered alongside other factors and on a case-by-case basis."
Your politics and beliefs will shape the research questions and hypothesis you are asking.
Please define worse. I think it was worse in the past (and can give you examples if you really want to read them), there was a lot of sexist and racist work done under the term "Science." I don't see that much work like that anymore ...
Yes, maybe some fringe gender science folks are overstressing sth. but come on, I don't see a problem in that (compared to how people misunderstood Darwin in the past ...).
But the question is: Should it be like that? Should we encourage or discourage that?
> (and can give you examples if you really want to read them)
Sure, I'd appreciate it. Especially if the articles/books covering them were not published in the recent years. I've read "Betrayers of the Truth" [1], so I know about the Piltdown Man [2] (which was apparently used to "prove" that earliest men were British), or that Cyril Burt [3] had most probably falsified data in his studies on heritability of IQ. Sometimes these exposés are themselves a tad biased though.
> some fringe gender science
It's not just social sciences, although they are much more affected. See the charts in the article linked in my original comment, for example.
And, IMO, it's not just a fringe part of gender studies. Its departments are essentially ideological think-tanks of the worst kind, with very little objective research being done by them.
> I don't see that much work like that anymore
But I'm sure you also know that there are certain things which are probably true, but almost no one would ever dare (or could) publish any kind of new evidence supporting them in the current climate.
As it is inevitable that there is an influence, should we discourage or encourage misogynist, sexist, racist views? (or should we be very careful when we make claims about such views, in the past authors weren't careful and it led to a lot of misery ... kind of WW2 type of misery ...)
You didn't define worse ... For me the most obvious examples where science went wrong is probably eugenics and other Supremacist beliefs.
People completely misrepresented Darwin. A lot of people died based on these misrepresentations.
What cannot be published today?
I mean Journals like Mankind Quaterly still exist ... you find still a lot of horrendous, bad science and racist work out there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mankind_Quarterly
It's harder to publish papers like that in Nature or Science (as the Scientific Consensus moved away from a flawed view), yet I would argue that's a good thing.
The current homogeneous politicization of science certainly isn't inevitable, as there are periods of rapid scientific progress in the past when this situation did not exist.
> People completely misrepresented Darwin.
I think that's overly intellectualizing things. Ethnic conflict and genocide probably don't have much to do with people's understanding of science, as there are still ethnic strifes around word, even though discussion of many genetic differences among populations is now generally frowned upon in academia. [1] And there has been ethnic conflicts everywhere since the dawn of time, since way before modern science, Darwin, or the contemporary history of eugenics.
> What cannot be published today?
Things like arguments made in "The Bell Curve" [2], or even "The Blank Slate" [3]? You can't really make those kinds of arguments without getting in trouble.
> I mean Journals like Mankind Quaterly still exist
I'd never heard of that journal before, but with an impact factor of 0.194 [4], it's probably safe to say that it has no influence whatsoever on science in general. (perhaps appropriately, as you say, I have no idea about the quality of papers it publishes) I'm sure many personal blogs are more influential.
But do you think you could conceivably publish a paper in Nature which cites something from that journal in a noncritical way? The barrier isn't due to low quality or the authors being ideologues, as there are papers cited in Nature with both of those defects.
The Nazis were not about Ethnic conflict, they believed to be the master race ... that's very different.
It's interesting you bring up Blank Slate and the Bell Curve. The first I agree with the second I find horribly flawed.
For [1] who are "They" in "They are coming for behaviour genetics"?
Nobody in their right mind in the Sciences refutes that our genes and biology are the underpinning of our behavior and that these change in terms of populations .
I'm friends with way too woke Social Science majors and they have a copy of the "Blank Slate" on their book shelf (signed by Pinker) agreeing with this.
Even Science and Nature do: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1075989
Can you find a biologist or behavior scientist who publishes in Nature/Science and believes in the blank slate (that genetics don't matter only education does)? I really doubt it, that would be absurd.
The problem is with the population, I doubt that the population can correspond to anything vaguely resembling a race concept. Here the Scientific establishment disagrees with the Bell Curve and for a good reason (as Melanin does not tell you much about other genes and our identical ancestors point is not so far out ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identical_ancestors_point ).
To the Bell Curve, it cites over 5 articles from the Mankind Quartely, the Journal you found so influence-less (non from higher impact journals). It also refers a lot to work from Arthur Jensen, he published a paper in the 60s about that differences IQ tests between black and whites might be because of genetics. In the 80s it was found out that the Pioneer Fund subsidized the work (grants for the works were more than a millon dollar). At the time of the writing there was no evidence to support Jensen's work. The authors knew that Jensen did scientific misconduct (with taking the money), yet didn't care ... There are more stories (also in terms of statistics) about the Bell Curve like that ... Bad Science, don't even need to address the flawed arguments ... If you cannot work on decent scientific methodology you are screwed. If you then complain that you are silenced or not taken seriously, you don't get any sympathy from me.
If there is an intelligence gene, where is it? Plomin (the professor whose book got critized in a Nature Review [1]) hasn't found it even though he put a LOT of effort in it. Shouldn't we call him out on that if he claims stuff that's not there (like the Nature review did)? Or should we just ignore it because we still believe in stuff that was published in the 1960 in Mankind Quaterly?
> But do you think you could conceivably publish a paper in Nature which cites something from that journal in a noncritical way?
No, because that journal has shown since the 1960 that it peddles racist pseudo science ... Yet, your statement that you cannot publish this stuff anymore is just not true. It becomes irrelevant because it's wrong (not because there's a secrete elite that does not want to talk about it).
> take "inclusion", there's a lot of work showing that a more diverse, inclusive population leads to better results (in social siences etc.) so it's obvious for me that people will use it more
I imagine it would be difficult getting a paper published that shows otherwise since diversity, equity, and inclusion have seemingly become tantamount to unquestionable religious dogma.
For example, you have the Biden administration publishing this blatantly contradictory guidance:
> The scientific integrity principles and best practices identified in the report aim to ensure that science is conducted, managed, communicated, and used in ways that preserve its accuracy and objectivity and protect it from suppression, manipulation, and inappropriate influence—including political interference.
>
> […]
>
> Scientific integrity policies should be modernized to address important, emergent issues of our time. They must advance diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility
Then you have Nature with this “ethics guidance” that seem to suggest it would be considered unethical to publish a study that challenges the present narrative of diversity, equity, and inclusion:
> Academic content that […] promotes privileged, exclusionary perspectives raises ethics concerns that may require revisions or supersede the value of publication.
> Science has for too long been complicit in perpetuating structural inequalities and discrimination in society. With this guidance, we take a step towards countering this.
> Consideration of risks and benefits (above and beyond any institutional ethics review) underlies the editorial process of all forms of scholarly communication in our publications. Editors consider harms that might result from the publication of a piece of scholarly communication, may seek external guidance on such potential risks of harm as part of the editorial process, and in cases of substantial risk of harm that outweighs any potential benefits, may decline publication (or correct, retract, remove or otherwise amend already published content).
> Regardless of content type (research, review or opinion) and, for research, regardless of whether a research project was reviewed and approved by appropriate ethics specialists, editors may raise with the authors concerns regarding potentially sexist, misogynistic, and/or anti-LGBTQ+ assumptions, implications or speech in their submission; engage external ethics experts to provide input on such issues as part of the peer review process; or request modifications to (or correct or otherwise amend post-publication), and in severe cases refuse publication of (or retract post-publication) sexist, misogynistic, and/or anti-LGBTQ+ content
Again, it's in the discretion of the editor. There has been and still is a lot of sexist, misogynistic, and racist stuff published in the past and today ... horrible stuff.
So you want people to continue publish racist, misogynistic etc. assumptions and implications? Want to understand what your goal is here.
I learned in my methodology class, if you didn't do a controlled experiment it's not possible to claim causation (that didn't stop people in the sciences to put out the wildest claims ... for example in genetics it would be pretty unethical to do a controlled experiment).
My point: in the past it was worse in terms of scientific integrity, racism, sexism (e.g. 60s versus now) etc. Seeing also the progression of the sciences. Show the opposite if you can.
There were scientific trials on poor and black people in the US without informed consent, because they were seen as lesser ... there were horrendous crimes against humanity done in the name of science. I think today it's better, yet you seem to disagree :)
> So you want people to continue publish racist, misogynistic etc. assumptions and implications? Want to understand what your goal is here.
"racist, misogynistic etc. assumptions and implications" is very broad and vague and I don't trust that my understanding of what qualifies as such is the same as that of the editors. My concern is that legitimate science will be suppressed in the name of "diversity, equity, and inclusion".
> There were scientific trials on poor and black people in the US without informed consent, because they were seen as lesser ... there were horrendous crimes against humanity done in the name of science. I think today it's better, yet you seem to disagree :)
I agree that performing trials on people without informed consent is unacceptable and should be prevented. Your attempt to conflate legitimate studies that may challenge the narrative of "diversity, equity, and inclusion" with inhumane trials performed without informed consent is fallacious.
My point: There was and there still is a lot of racist, misogynistic stuff published in the past and today. The trials were just an example of that: assuming informed consent does not apply to Black people is racist, isn’t it?
If you don’t believe me that race science is still publishable, there’s the Mankind Quarterly peddling race science since 1960. Do I want to see these papers in Nature? No! You want to?
> My concern is that legitimate science will be suppressed in the name of "diversity, equity, and inclusion".
Ok, valid concern. I am concerned that scientific publications due to bad generalizations support racist ideology as they did in the past. I can show you that racist stuff is still published in academic journals (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mankind\_Quarterly ).
Can you show me where legitimate papers with decent studies (and decent methodology) are suppressed and not published? There are a lot of people screaming "We are silenced by the establishment." However, if you look at their work, it's often flawed and horribly wrong (in terms of methodology). Like I pointed out about the Bell Curve in another thread.
I read the Nature editor notes, as "be careful with your assumptions as we cannot explore and know some causation as controlled experiments in those fields would be unethical." especially highlighting the problems from the past (oh man... there are so many horrible sexist and racist papers published).
Grant givers: specify they will only give money to ‶oustanding″, ‶novel″, ‶impactful″, ‶game-changing″, etc. applications; prioritize hype over matter.
Grant given: fill their application with hype and buzzwords to get grants.
Well well, who could have guessed this completely unforeseeable consequence...
That's sad because grant panels approve based on political and personal relationships, not the content of the grant. Lol this is like complaining about mafia talking about cannoli....
As a proposal reviewer, I see these words and other strategies (like putting in the abstract "I published in this nature journal") a nudge against the chritical mindset required for providing fair feedback. On the other hand, if you are humble, you might not excite enough the reviewers. Anyone with a suggestion for a sweet middle point?
About a decade ago, everyone was told that scientific documents were impenetratable by common folk, so to make them more accessible and attract more funding, a narrative should be created and include literary devices to spice them up.
Now everything reads like a TED talk.
IMO, the US needs to clean house. We should restructure our research funding so that it goes to motivated and curious people instead of politically connected PIs. This means totally disconnecting NSF/NIH/DARPA funding from the university apparatus. Treat academic affiliation -- and the associated albatross of "overhead" -- as a hindrance to grant applications as opposed to a requirement.
Imagine how much better the caliber of our research will be if we pay grad students $100K instead of paying them $35K and their university $65K. We could 10x our research spend by giving money to the right people instead of giving it to people who can stomach and afford giving 2/3rds of their funding to sad excuses for institutions that American universities have become.
At the very least, tax payers need to stop bailing out student loan debt while simultaneously funding multiple annual week-long conferences in Hawaii and Europe for professors who scoff at their teaching assignments.