[HN Gopher] Enthusiastic amateurs advance science as they hunt f...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Enthusiastic amateurs advance science as they hunt for exotic
       mushrooms
        
       Author : jdnier
       Score  : 94 points
       Date   : 2021-06-21 03:55 UTC (19 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.npr.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.npr.org)
        
       | bredren wrote:
       | Another example of this is in the study of domestic animal
       | behavior with speak buttons.
       | 
       | I believe this amateur wave is part of a much bigger set of
       | societal actions "challenging assumptions" of the former era.
       | 
       | There is a sharp decline in reverence for "authority" along with
       | a lowering of barriers to entry. Almost anyone with interest and
       | bravery to share has a chance to shine in any subject area.
       | 
       | Computer science is leading the way, in part because it often
       | requires little or no physical presence or collaboration. Proof
       | of advancements can be disseminated in perfect fidelity and
       | validated quickly.
       | 
       | In other fields, people who happen to live among a rare natural
       | phenomena have great potential to fall into discovery others
       | could only hope to witness at great expense.
       | 
       | Following this to its natural conclusion all fields will
       | ultimately be advanced by a mix of professionals, academics and
       | increasingly "amateurs" that earn reputation not by publishing
       | but by pure contributions of content that unquestionably move the
       | field forward.
        
         | toto444 wrote:
         | There are a lot of people very interested by science but from
         | what I read academia does not seem to be a good place to be in.
         | That might help explaining why we can see 'amateur scientists'
         | coming up with interesting results.
        
           | amelius wrote:
           | Do you think the existence of these amateurs will help
           | improve the current state in academia, or will it have the
           | opposite effect?
        
             | treeman79 wrote:
             | Look at em drive. A nonsense device that caused a LOT of
             | people to become very good at Torsion Pendulums.
             | 
             | Was fastening to watch ever improving builds as people
             | tried to prove/disprove. Did em drive work out, no. But a
             | lot did come out of the effort.
        
           | mc32 wrote:
           | It looks like there could be a twofold problem:
           | 
           | Some academics are interested in pushing a particular take
           | (agenda). This is contrary to science but often serving some
           | social or political sentiment.
           | 
           | Amateur scientists might lack the rigor to give their claims
           | validity and may reach undeserved conclusions leading to
           | misunderstanding from a part of the public who want some
           | validation for their own beliefs.
        
             | scottLobster wrote:
             | I'd say the root is likely much simpler: Money
             | 
             | Getting a degree, particularly a PhD to do research, is
             | hideously expensive in the US and rarely pays well relative
             | to the cost, even for STEM.
             | 
             | Science in general is underfunded IMO, and from what I'm
             | told competition for grants can be extreme. Society says
             | they want the next Thomas Edison but they aren't willing to
             | fund all the other failed light bulb designs to find him.
             | 
             | In that environment being an amateur scientist makes the
             | most sense if you can swing it. Do something more lucrative
             | to ensure prosperity and, if you're really passionate about
             | something scientific and can afford the necessary equipment
             | yourself, do it at home and blog about it.
             | 
             | Worth remembering that prior to modern funding mechanisms a
             | lot (most?) of science was done by the independently
             | wealthy gentry.
        
               | caddemon wrote:
               | I agree competition for grants drives a lot of these
               | problems, but getting a STEM PhD costs nothing at any
               | remotely respectable institution. You will be spending 5+
               | years making less than you could, so you still may not
               | come out ahead financially, but it's purely an
               | opportunity cost not an actual cost. It's not uncommon
               | either for people to bail with a free masters after 2
               | years.
               | 
               | I like the idea of making money first and then pursuing
               | research, but I think for certain fields the only way to
               | do much of anything would be to latch on as a research
               | volunteer to an existing lab. Because the cost to run any
               | experiments is just way too high, particularly if you
               | have no shared equipment to begin with.
               | 
               | Alternatively, you could just start a PhD later in life.
               | There are time limits on a bunch of the academic stages,
               | but no clock really starts until after you've finished
               | your PhD. I do think it would be a lot more comfortable
               | to do a PhD once you've already financially established
               | yourself, plus I think it produces a better culture when
               | people aren't so attached to progressing up the academic
               | ladder, like their life depends on it.
        
               | akiselev wrote:
               | I think you're underestimating opportunity cost and
               | overestimating how much grant money is spent on actual
               | science rather than overhead costs like the university's
               | 25% cut, head count, administration, conferences, and so
               | on. The actual numbers are staggering. When I dropped out
               | and first moved to SV (pre facebook IPO), I lived with a
               | Mozilla undergraduate intern who made twice what my mom
               | made as a neuroscience postdoc with decades of
               | experience. An engineer making mid to senior level FAANG
               | money and investing savings in an index fund, probably
               | makes $1 million to $2 million more over a _decade_. For
               | someone who doesn 't make it into a tenured position, the
               | life time difference in earnings is depressing to think
               | about.
               | 
               | The barriers to entry are intimidating but not
               | insurmountable - there are so many hidden idiosyncrasies
               | and inefficiencies in academia that obfuscate the real
               | cost and make it seem harder than it really is. Just look
               | at the proliferation of hackerspaces with their capital
               | equipment which, although not as expensive as some lab
               | equipment, still runs in the tens of thousands per
               | machine. It's just that we've been doing it this way for
               | so long we can't imagine any other way.
        
               | caddemon wrote:
               | Yes continuing on into postdoc is another 3+ years of
               | opportunity cost, certainly it does add up quickly. But
               | OP was implying that PhD students actually had to pay for
               | their degrees which is not true. Most people will finish
               | PhD before they are 30, if you compare to top SWE or
               | finance jobs then sure there is expensive opportunity
               | cost, but compared to entry level jobs more generally it
               | really is not a huge deal. Most people doing a
               | traditional STEM PhD wouldn't even be able to get one of
               | the "high roller" jobs out of undergrad, because only a
               | handful of majors are considered for the most part. A
               | pure neuro undergrad wouldn't learn enough CS in school
               | to be considered for a FAANG.
               | 
               | IMO postdoc is where people really start to get set back
               | - you don't get benefits like free health insurance or
               | subsidized housing anymore, you are getting older with
               | additional life expenses, and you aren't getting a degree
               | that can open doors to additional jobs anymore. You are
               | basically just continuing to chase a university career at
               | shit pay by the point you reach a postdoc. The worst part
               | is that people are forced into postdocs almost
               | immediately, because you literally can't get one after
               | you are a certain number of years past graduation.
               | 
               | I don't disagree that as a society there are better ways.
               | But as an individual actor unless you make an absolute
               | killing with some start up or something there is no way
               | you can afford to do proper biology research (for
               | example). Perhaps if you're willing to move into some
               | specific niche based on feasibility, but you'd have very
               | little freedom in what questions you could ask this way.
               | Beyond money there are also logistical questions
               | surrounding care of animals or possible clinical
               | collaboration, so unless you're happy doing in vitro work
               | only this is another can of worms for someone attempting
               | to be an independent researcher.
        
           | treeman79 wrote:
           | A lot of "amateurs" have access to far more resources than
           | professionals of generations past.
           | 
           | Equipment, training, larger communities, sometimes even
           | functional wealth.
           | 
           | Let's see what happens when we drop a car from a crane onto a
           | trampoline.
           | 
           | That's a lot more equipment then dropping a feather and a
           | cannon ball off a tower.
        
         | j4yav wrote:
         | That's awesome. It is very much how I felt about computers when
         | I was learning them in the 80s.. me, a little kid, could make
         | or do something that nobody had ever done before exactly. And
         | all the other homebrew clubs and hacker groups were doing the
         | same thing. I guess 3d printing was similar recently, and I'm
         | excited to see what the next ones are.
        
         | secfirstmd wrote:
         | Absolutely. The dog "Bunny" for example is really an incredible
         | version of that. Watch a few of these videos and it will change
         | how you see dogs for ever. Some examples of these dogs just
         | focus on food or play. Bunny gets into questions about family,
         | concern for neighbours dogs and existential stuff like "Mom,
         | were you dog?"
         | 
         | https://www.instagram.com/whataboutbunny/
        
           | amanaplanacanal wrote:
           | Bunny as presented is pretty mind blowing. But I wonder:
           | since we only see a tiny part of her interactions, is this an
           | example of a million monkeys with a million typewriters?
        
             | Workaccount2 wrote:
             | It strikes me as more likely that bunny is just memorizing
             | button combinations (or more likely just a button, with ad-
             | lib other buttons thrown in) that lead to certain actions -
             | totally independent of the words being said.
             | 
             | Take chimps for example, who learned hundreds of sign
             | words. Despite knowing how to "communicate", they never
             | once asked a question.
             | 
             | I haven't watched a bunch of bunny videos, but it strikes
             | me more as astrological sign reading than "dogs finally
             | have a meaningful way to communicate".
        
         | creddit wrote:
         | > There is a sharp decline in reverence for "authority" along
         | with a lowering of barriers to entry.
         | 
         | This feels so different to what I've observed in "blue" states
         | and popular media/social media over the last 1.3yrs
        
       | jgrahamc wrote:
       | Reminded me of a piece I wrote years about about amateurs in
       | science:
       | https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/mar/03/amateu...
        
       | akomtu wrote:
       | I'm sure they'll advance science a lot more when they find those
       | mushrooms!
        
         | kaycebasques wrote:
         | I know the parent comment was a bit tongue in cheek, but it
         | reminds me of a theory about the origins of human intelligence
         | that I heard in the documentary Fantastic Fungi. Long story
         | short the theory is that our ancestors stumbled upon magic
         | mushrooms and the psychedelic experience was a spark of new
         | perspective, and then the one who discovered the mushrooms
         | would take its tribe to other psychedelic mushrooms and have
         | them try them so that they would all experience the perspective
         | shift.
        
           | bredren wrote:
           | To bring this a little closer to this audience, readers may
           | be interested in John Markoff's book What the Doormouse Said,
           | which draws a direct line between the use of psychedelics and
           | the development of the personal computer.
        
           | ryder9 wrote:
           | crackpot hypothesis without any basis in reality, can't even
           | call it a hypothesis since legitimate hypotheses have
           | somewhat of a basis in reality
           | 
           | the sort of stuff joe rogan would spew under the influence
        
       | pmoriarty wrote:
       | My favorite amateur mushroom hunter is Alan Rockefeller, who I
       | found out about through his fantastic talks on identifying
       | psilocybin mushrooms: [1] [2]
       | 
       | He talks about how he got in to mushroom hunting at about 18
       | minutes in to [1]:
       | 
       |  _" About 2001 I went hiking, and I've always been in to nature
       | and camping but around 2001 I was hiking and I kind of felt like
       | it was sort of a waste of time to hike. Sure, it was exercise and
       | it was pretty out there, but I was kind of like "What am I doing
       | with my life?", but I saw all these mushrooms, and I'm like
       | "Huh.. these are pretty interesting," and so I looked at them a
       | little closer and thought "there must be people out there that
       | know what these are, that know which ones are common, which ones
       | are hallucinogenic, poisonous," and so I just started paying a
       | little bit of attention to them and taking pictures of them and
       | that gave me a reason to go out in to the woods, so I didn't feel
       | nearly so guilty for wasting all my time in the forest anymore,
       | since I had a mission._
       | 
       |  _" These days my mission is usually to take the best pictures I
       | possibly can of every species of mushroom I come across and then
       | I publish all the pictures online with a free license so anybody
       | can use them forever. I do DNA sequencing of all of them and get
       | them all in to genbank. But I think the path was just being
       | really curious about them and just being really curious about
       | nature and doing that. I never really expected to get well known
       | for psilocybin mushrooms. That was kind of random. I just got
       | really in to them at the same time they got kind of popular._
       | 
       |  _" I think psilocybin mushrooms are really useful for getting
       | people interested in nature. So many people out there looking for
       | psilocybin mushrooms. This gets them outside, gets them looking
       | closely at the mushrooms. There are so many people looking for
       | psilocybin mushrooms to get high and now they're super in to
       | plants and mushrooms and all of nature. It's kind of like a
       | gateway in to nature."_
       | 
       | [1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pInqVRRva7M
       | 
       | [2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcL-7u80kjs
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-06-21 23:02 UTC)