[HN Gopher] Fund Science on the Basis of Scientists' Work, Not T...
___________________________________________________________________
Fund Science on the Basis of Scientists' Work, Not Their Identity
Author : temp8964
Score : 29 points
Date : 2021-12-19 17:37 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (quillette.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (quillette.com)
| dash2 wrote:
| Just amazing that this should even have to be said. But I'm an
| academic, and here we are.
|
| What's particularly bad about this approach - which is fast
| becoming endemic - is that it effectively treats science as a
| source of perks for scientists. No! We fund science because it
| benefits all humans. If the choice is "allocate cancer research
| money to be equal between men/women/ethnic groups of your choice"
| and "allocate money to maximize the chance of curing cancer",
| that should be a no-brainer!
|
| To be clear, I believe that there are things that could be done
| to improve the participation of minorities in science _which
| would also improve science_. But positive discrimination is
| unlikely to be one of them, and certainly ought not to be the
| first port of call.
|
| And yeah, as a white male, I also obviously dislike the idea that
| it is OK for me to be discriminated against. People are funny
| that way.
| agarsev wrote:
| The article makes the point that in a particular funding call,
| men got more money than women because there are more men of some
| ages due to imbalances of the past, rather than because of
| discrimination against women. However, it does not argue _why_
| funding should be awarded base on the merit of the work.
| Additionally, the last paragraph is unnecessary and lowers the
| article 's value in my view. Discriminating against a majority to
| make more space for a minority might be the wrong thing to do,
| but it is in no way equivalent to discriminating against a
| _minority_ to exclude that minority from participation.
|
| On the topic of the title, even if it's not addressed in the
| article itself, why would someone argue _against_ evaluating
| scientists for their work instead of their identity? The problem
| is that science is so specialized today that only other
| specialists can value each other 's work. But some external
| control or balancing force is necessary to avoid politics and
| tribalism (yes, scientists are human too). Forcing diversity in
| funding may be a way to disrupt endogamous tendencies without
| compromising quality of research (unless you believe that women
| or cultures or whatever do worse science).
|
| On the other hand, a lot of science is "hit and miss". Many
| important discoveries are found by chance. And a lot of extremely
| important basic research is not obviously important until some
| flashy result is achieved, if ever. Funding this is almost a
| lottery. And therefore, it is a good place to exert some action
| into diversity. There are still many high profile grants and
| awards for excellent researchers and groups, so it is not a
| problem and, who knows, maybe it is good, to distribute funding
| to increase social representation so that science does not become
| (or keeps on being) a white, well-off male game.
| dash2 wrote:
| > Many important discoveries are found by chance. And a lot of
| extremely important basic research is not obviously important
| until some flashy result is achieved, if ever. Funding this is
| almost a lottery...
|
| I do not find this persuasive. Is the argument really "we have
| no idea how to fund science, so we might as well use it as a
| social justice tool?" While many salient discoveries are found
| by chance, most science is done deliberately, not at random. We
| did not get to the moon, split the atom, or develop electric
| cars by chance. Even chance results are often found _by very
| good scientists_ , because fortune favours the prepared mind.
|
| I'm also unconvinced by "Forcing diversity in funding may be a
| way to disrupt endogamous tendencies". Frankly, from my POV,
| this is about as credible as "joining the Jonestown cult may be
| a way to cure suicidal ideation". See also
| https://cspicenter.org/reports/increasing-politicization-
| and....
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-12-19 23:02 UTC)