I have a friend who slaps stickers that look like electrical outlets on airport walls when he travels, he then watches as people try to charge their phone.
Let me make a (bad) case for academic "freedom". If you take a professional knowledge services firm (say law) a new hire (even after graduating) is woefully inefficient/ inexperienced. If you want them to be productive you have to invest significant management & training time/resources. Now academia is one of those where within a 4 year grad degree, the 3rd years can actually transfer their experience to the younger cohort (the last year too busy with actual thesis writing). Without academia, this cost of upskilling needs either be apprenticeship (learn in return for bondage) or state subsidy to employers (cheaper to poach from other firms than internal). Academia follows the user-pay model so the cost of slacking off is borne by the trainee not trainer
Another use is credentials as signalling ... getting an MBA from Harvard is a shortcut to screening candidates (though imperfect). So reputation does have flowon effects. Note credentials can be replaced by industry bodies so not exclusive.
I'd ignore the social dimension of the MrS qualification.
For some more serious rational, studies show that 30s are the most creative period for researhers where they have enough foundation to get to the frontier of ignorance yet not rigid enough to follow conventional wisdom. PostDocs and similar hires get their breaks by working at cutting-edge fields. Another justification is innovation happens at intersection of domains, bioinformatics =genome project = biology + compsci database, lab-on-chip = microelectronics + biophysics. Academia have the breadth of fields that a single firm cannot host. Willingness to take punts or moon-shots, often breakthrus don't come with revenue forecasts ... eg early WiFi standards from astrophysics, WWW (httpd + html) from CERN, early DeSci from SETI citizen science project ...
As counterfactual, look at the rate of translational science success with Alphabet , 5th gen project under MITI or the sad state of chinese academic TT (sheesh, their solar panel tech was acquired from AU and fast train designs from Japan)
It has consistently surprised me at how people can be so certain of how the world works, and use terms like “Always” or “Never” so triumphantly, as if the world has never changed in the past, and it won’t always be change in the future. (my ironic edit lol)
Good post. Regarding moral debates #1 & #2, I think you may appreciate the Mertonian norms of science. CUDOS. The "U" is universalism, that "science" can come from anyone and anywhere. It can even come from Venture Capital. The "D" is disinterestedness, the scientific norm that science doesn't care how the establishment (or universities) wish to promote certain outcomes over others. Science pursues truth, regardless of where it takes you. This begins to resonate with your moral debate #1 about the utility of academic institutions. And it brings us to the fourth Mertonian norm- organized skepticism. The reason why conservatives are still upset about Covid is because the regulatory agencies will allow skepticism, but not "organized" skepticism which allows us to more fully resolve lingering doubts. And the academic institutions are complicit in this. By preventing others from gaining authoritative credibility, the universities retain theirs by default, regardless of whether or not it is merited.
Thing is... I have disagreements with the first Mertonian norm: Communism. That science should freely be for the benefit of all. I'd prefer to make a killing on a discovery. Back in the days of Lockheed, they published discoveries in patents, not peer-reviewed journals. Adam, what could you do with a scientific discovery if you got ahold of it before any university? Would that be the equivalent of "insider sciencing" or "insider innovating" where you could iterate and advance with the luxury of time on your side?
But where does such a scientist go if they wish to bring forth a discovery without a university taking the lead?
> What use does the academic institution have?
Let me make a (bad) case for academic "freedom". If you take a professional knowledge services firm (say law) a new hire (even after graduating) is woefully inefficient/ inexperienced. If you want them to be productive you have to invest significant management & training time/resources. Now academia is one of those where within a 4 year grad degree, the 3rd years can actually transfer their experience to the younger cohort (the last year too busy with actual thesis writing). Without academia, this cost of upskilling needs either be apprenticeship (learn in return for bondage) or state subsidy to employers (cheaper to poach from other firms than internal). Academia follows the user-pay model so the cost of slacking off is borne by the trainee not trainer
Another use is credentials as signalling ... getting an MBA from Harvard is a shortcut to screening candidates (though imperfect). So reputation does have flowon effects. Note credentials can be replaced by industry bodies so not exclusive.
I'd ignore the social dimension of the MrS qualification.
For some more serious rational, studies show that 30s are the most creative period for researhers where they have enough foundation to get to the frontier of ignorance yet not rigid enough to follow conventional wisdom. PostDocs and similar hires get their breaks by working at cutting-edge fields. Another justification is innovation happens at intersection of domains, bioinformatics =genome project = biology + compsci database, lab-on-chip = microelectronics + biophysics. Academia have the breadth of fields that a single firm cannot host. Willingness to take punts or moon-shots, often breakthrus don't come with revenue forecasts ... eg early WiFi standards from astrophysics, WWW (httpd + html) from CERN, early DeSci from SETI citizen science project ...
As counterfactual, look at the rate of translational science success with Alphabet , 5th gen project under MITI or the sad state of chinese academic TT (sheesh, their solar panel tech was acquired from AU and fast train designs from Japan)
Never say never again. Interesting post @Adam Draper. Looking forward to more.
What use does the academic institution have?
Trains the gen pop for normal slightly-specialized world maintenance roles.
Can scientific breakthroughs be created by non-academic “Scientists”
Yes, maybe they are even more likely to have a breakthrough because they aren't biased by by the current paradigms accepted in the field as true.
Should we live forever?
Nah. For what?
Should we bring back the dead?
Not into reanimation despite growing up watching Fringe.
It has consistently surprised me at how people can be so certain of how the world works, and use terms like “Always” or “Never” so triumphantly, as if the world has never changed in the past, and it won’t always be change in the future. (my ironic edit lol)
Good post. Regarding moral debates #1 & #2, I think you may appreciate the Mertonian norms of science. CUDOS. The "U" is universalism, that "science" can come from anyone and anywhere. It can even come from Venture Capital. The "D" is disinterestedness, the scientific norm that science doesn't care how the establishment (or universities) wish to promote certain outcomes over others. Science pursues truth, regardless of where it takes you. This begins to resonate with your moral debate #1 about the utility of academic institutions. And it brings us to the fourth Mertonian norm- organized skepticism. The reason why conservatives are still upset about Covid is because the regulatory agencies will allow skepticism, but not "organized" skepticism which allows us to more fully resolve lingering doubts. And the academic institutions are complicit in this. By preventing others from gaining authoritative credibility, the universities retain theirs by default, regardless of whether or not it is merited.
Thing is... I have disagreements with the first Mertonian norm: Communism. That science should freely be for the benefit of all. I'd prefer to make a killing on a discovery. Back in the days of Lockheed, they published discoveries in patents, not peer-reviewed journals. Adam, what could you do with a scientific discovery if you got ahold of it before any university? Would that be the equivalent of "insider sciencing" or "insider innovating" where you could iterate and advance with the luxury of time on your side?
But where does such a scientist go if they wish to bring forth a discovery without a university taking the lead?
Those scientists go to fringe VC-backed biotechs.