
Let researchers try new paths - jaoued
http://www.nature.com/news/let-researchers-try-new-paths-1.20857
======
nazgulnarsil
The time horizon that publish or perish forces is not conducive to high
variance research. If you do a year of research and get a null result you are
screwed, so what do people do? Not pursue research with a significant chance
of that happening. But high variance research is exactly what leads to major
breakthroughs.

~~~
nonbel
>"If you do a year of research and get a null result you are screwed"

The best I heard on this site was that "alpha is the expected value of p".
After a few years of calibration, each field collects just enough data (or
adjusts the cutoff) to pump out "statistically significant" results at the
appropriate rate. It makes it just hard enough to seem like an accomplishment,
but most grad students will get something to publish if they just keep at it.

Of course, that is a totally arbitrary metric that has little to do with the
quality of the research.

~~~
Houshalter
Somewhat relevant: [http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-
ou...](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/04/28/the-control-group-is-out-of-
control/)

We set up a control group for science. An entire field of science devoted to
studying a phenomenon which doesn't exist. And they still manage to produce
tons of significant results and findings, despite using much higher standards
than regular social sciences.

~~~
taxicabjesus
> We set up a control group for science. An entire field of science devoted to
> studying a phenomenon which doesn't exist.

That this "phenomenon" does not and cannot exist is the _foundational
assumption_ of modern science. Back in the days when the Laws of
Thermodynamics were being figured out to describe the properties of steam
engines, a few chemists realized that everything in the universe could be
described in terms of indivisible 'atoms'.

Atoms aren't indivisible anymore, but the assumption lives on.

Life is much more interesting if one assumes that our 3d-reality is but a
projection of a higher-ordered reality.

------
danieltillett
The only way to get high variance research is to offer very long (10 to 15
years), well paid fellowships with no reporting or progress requirements to
young and promising scientists. Make these as hard to get as you like, but
once awarded leave them alone to get on with research. Anything less than this
will just generate iterative research.

~~~
dasmoth
I'm not convinced this will work as well as you might hope. The ticking clock,
and the high expectations, are still there.

The J.J. Thomson quote still seems applicable, even if the time horizon is
slightly longer:

>>> “If you pay a man a salary for doing research, he and you will want to
have something to point to at the end of the year to show that the money has
not been wasted. In promising work of the highest class, however, results do
not come in this regular fashion, in fact years may pass without any tangible
results being obtained, and the position of the paid worker would be very
embarrassing and he would naturally take to work on a lower, or at any rate,
different plane where he could be sure of getting year by year tangible
results which would justify his salary. The position is this: You want this
kind of research, but if you pay a man to do it, it will drive him to research
of a different kind. The only thing to do is pay him for doing something else
and give him enough leisure to do research for the love of it.”

That points towards some plausible answers for supporting non-capital-
intensive research (e.g. pay to teach instead). Supporting more capital-
intensive research, I really don't know.

~~~
petra
Maybe one key is to creating a culture evaluating people on effort, talent,
process, boldness , etc without being straightly tied to the result - and
people who sucseed in doing that well , should have some form of job security
, and the knowledge they are doing what they are paid to do.

And if over the long period they fail to produce results, even though they try
well, maybe let them work together with someone else who is more lucky with
hypoetheses ?

~~~
dasmoth
It's an interesting idea, but I suspect that in practice evaluation of these
things -- "process" in particular -- will favour the conservative in practice.

------
abhv
The most fun thing to say for a successful researcher is stuff like:

(1) "I wouldn't have been able to do my awesome work in today's research
climate"

(2) "Nobody believed me, but then I showed them all..."

(3) "I was a destitute street magician until I discovered probability theory
and then won a MacArther"

(4) "My first 10^5 experiments were failures, but I persisted."

(5) "I almost failed high school trig" (a) ...because it was too boring for
me. (b) ...because i was a misguided pothead back then.

Take these stories as "the set that gets published" because a wide audience
feels better about themselves after reading them.

On the other hand, the same public votes for lawmakers who are intent on
cutting research funding because they think it is useless (e.g., they randomly
pick some funny-sounding grant from NSF, read it on TV in some sarcastic
voice, and then declare that all research is bunk).

I see the NSF become less exploratory because of the pressure to "have
practical impact," and I believe that is driven by one particular political
party in the US.

When so many people present well-conceived ideas that will at least have some
payoff (at least in terms of publications), it is hard to justify supporting
wonky ideas by people who don't show evidence of mastery in the new area.

How many of you have a total-crank uncle who thinks he has a better idea for
solar cells, electric cars, or XYZ?

Well, the same holds if you substitute "uncle" for "professor at a tier-one
research university."

------
WesternStar
I am saying that scientists should dabble. In fact we should force them to
dabble.

~~~
karmajunkie
As my highly degreed spouse often declares, what is a PhD for if not to
credential a professional dilettante?

~~~
Qworg
PhDs are professional dilettantes? I've always seen it as exactly the opposite
- they are hyperfocused in their field of study.

~~~
duopixel
They're professional dilettantes because they are researching areas of human
knowledge where nobody has gone before (however small or specialized).

~~~
Qworg
Ah, I never took amateur that way!

------
SFJulie
There used to be a long tradition of DIY scientists working in their house
without a degree. And they were free to explore the ways they wanted. And some
were published

Actually opening science to hobbyists would be a good idea. I come from a
country where diploma are required to be philosophes, artists and scientists
however we hardly win any Nobel prizes or have good artists, while we had
hobbyists who actually discovered stuff: Rousseau applied math for cheating
the national lottery, Lavoisier discovered the composition of air and the
azote...my grandfather was like that.

But, I guess people already know diploma don't make you anything more than a
person with a nice paper to hang on your wall.

The problem is mainly the respect of institutions.

~~~
hga
I think that path still exists, especially in my native America, the problem
is once you go beyond math and theoretical physics to experimental physics,
most chemistry and biology etc. you need serious money and/or stature to
arrange access to expensive instruments to do the work, and getting either
generally means getting your Ph.D. first (although at least in the US you'll
get paid to get it after you pay to get your bachelor's degree).

And you're probably not going to be able to do that, especially legally, if
you live in a crowded apartment in a city, plus the days of doing experiments
at a country home, or with very simple apparatus albeit in a formal lab like
the University of Cambridge's Cavendish Laboratory, seem to be largely over
due to the picking of all the low hanging fruit, although I'm sure there are
niches where this isn't true, or quite so bad.

Some of this will depend on resourcefulness, like finding bargains on used
equipment, but that circles back to first being a part of the scientific
community so you've got a network to find out about those opportunities in the
first place.

------
throwwit
Hopefully a 'new path' doesn't entail something like working at a fast food
joint... [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/that-figures-
profe...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/that-figures-professor-
who-had-to-work-at-subway-dazzles-world-of-maths-after-solving-centuries-
old-8625637.html)

------
aswanson
Seems one of the problems is that the funding sources are run by too many old
people. They should be forced out every few years and not be allowed to make a
career of it.

~~~
noobermin
Anecdote of one, but my funder is quite old and he has taken us on even though
our research is not quite in his vein. Moreover, our PI is super old but he's
often pushing us to keep fusion in mind, although we are aware that really
going down that road in our would be a tough sell for funders.

It isn't quite an age thing as much as it is a "establishment" thing. The
establishment is, if you will, older and more established than any one
individual, old or young.

~~~
_delirium
In my area (AI), if anything I think the older people in funding bodies are
more open to funding a large variety of work, because they've seen multiple
cycles of hot techniques coming and going, and lots of eggs being put in a
handful of baskets, so tend to think there's value in funding even long-shot
and currently-not-hot areas in case something comes out of them long term.
Younger people involved in these kinds of funding bodies are much more likely
to be the ones pushing for funding to be highly concentrated in a handful of
currently hot areas that have clear paths to near-term significant advances,
the "we should put 100% of our funding into deep neural networks" type of
strategy.

