You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Perverse Incentives and Hyper-competition in Academia
We do such events in Japan, too. I'm preparing a presentation for one next month, which will be the fourth year that I present to the public here. I find it a useful way to build up my presentation skills, and rewarding as well.
However, I'm not so convinced that such 'outreach' events provide sufficient incentive for scientists to conduct research that is if benefit to people in general.
I do not agree to the fact that one should only focus on research topics from which we could expect results benefiting to people directly.
Take all fundamental research, there is probably zero direct benefit to people. Would it be a reason not to conduct those researches? Knowledge per se is valuable.
Oh, I wasn't sufficiently clear.
I was not referring to immediate benefits, as from 'applied research'. I agree that basic research is valuable, and that the knowledge gained may have entirely unforeseen benefits.
However, I think it's important that scientists conducting such basic research be honest about that fact (that their research may not have immediate practical applications), and that the ordinary people who pay to fund 'public' research should have a say in deciding what should be funded, i.e., what they themselves value.
This reminds me a conversation I already have on steemit some time ago :)
The problem in having ordinary people deciding what is important and what is not is that one may end up refusing to fund research that looks boring and useless, but that is necessary as a potential building block for future applications. This is why reports written by each scientific community where the needs are clearly indicated (and why they are important) are necessary. The question being, will these reports be read and used?
I admit that at the end, it is a matter of replacing the governments taking decision by another entity (the general audience). But with the governments, we have clearly designed people to speak with and shout if necessary.
Oh, for the well connected centralised decision making is certainly better. The question is whether it's a good deal for the ordinary folks who actually pay for it, through taxes and inflation.
Your statements reminded me of this character from Animal Farm:
"Comrades," he said, "I trust that every animal here appreciates the sacrifice that Comrade Napoleon has made in taking this extra labour upon himself. Do not imagine, comrades, that leadership is a pleasure! On the contrary, it is a deep and heavy responsibility. No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be? " ---Comrade Napoleon
Hehe.... Comrade Napoleon :)
As I said, at the end of the day replacing some entity that sometimes makes crazy decisions by another entity that could sometimes make crazy decisions too (possibly differently crazy).
I however think that we owe something to tax payers. Explaining what we do is the minimum.