Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="freyar" data-source="post: 6642807" data-attributes="member: 40227">Scientists are marketers in a sense (some more so than others).&nbsp; I just got back from a presentation by a Canadian MP (who is a PhD physicist), who made a pretty clear case that scientists are way behind most other groups in terms of marketing to the public, developing a clear constituency, and influencing policy.&nbsp; This is an important issue, because it influences how much money goes into science overall and to some big earmarked projects in particular.&nbsp; Outreach, or explaining things to the public, is something that I feel is also part of the job in a sense, since the public is generally who pays for science.However, nearly all individual projects are funded based on peer review, both anonymous referees and expert committees.&nbsp; These are not generally composed of people from the same subfield as the applicant, which reduces the chance of &quot;group think.&quot;&nbsp; Now, &quot;trendiness&quot; does sometimes enter into hiring decisions in academia, which is problematic, though generally the pendulum swings back after some time leading to an eventual balance.&nbsp; It's also fair to say that there are good reasons for this in the cases I've observed --- research areas are particularly productive, a big experiment is coming on line, etc.I'd also say that I haven't seen group think lead to major errors over a long period of time.&nbsp; Scientists, like other people, are pretty competitive.&nbsp; We always want to be the first to come up with the right idea, so it means you try to shoot holes in other people's ideas.&nbsp; Ones that don't work eventually get knocked out.&nbsp; And when there are multiple good ideas, people are pretty honest about it.&nbsp; Now, this competitiveness also means that some people hold onto ideas that appear unworkable, but (1) that's easy to recognize and (2) it's part of the system that continually tests all the ideas.&nbsp; Science is adversarial in some ways, even though it is also a cooperative enterprise.It's also worth distinguishing physics research from medical research in a couple of ways.&nbsp; First, the body is a really complex system, so a lot of research looks at correlations more than causation.&nbsp; It's necessary, and it's the way we advance knowledge, but it can lead to apparent reversals.&nbsp; But what I think is also important is that medical research gets reported widely very quickly, so sometimes I think the public gets a perception that the science is settled by one study when really a lot more work is needed.&nbsp; Of course, this is not my area, so that's just an outsider's impression.&nbsp; Physics doesn't usually get that kind of scrutiny.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="freyar, post: 6642807, member: 40227"] Scientists are marketers in a sense (some more so than others). I just got back from a presentation by a Canadian MP (who is a PhD physicist), who made a pretty clear case that scientists are way behind most other groups in terms of marketing to the public, developing a clear constituency, and influencing policy. This is an important issue, because it influences how much money goes into science overall and to some big earmarked projects in particular. Outreach, or explaining things to the public, is something that I feel is also part of the job in a sense, since the public is generally who pays for science. However, nearly all individual projects are funded based on peer review, both anonymous referees and expert committees. These are not generally composed of people from the same subfield as the applicant, which reduces the chance of "group think." Now, "trendiness" does sometimes enter into hiring decisions in academia, which is problematic, though generally the pendulum swings back after some time leading to an eventual balance. It's also fair to say that there are good reasons for this in the cases I've observed --- research areas are particularly productive, a big experiment is coming on line, etc. I'd also say that I haven't seen group think lead to major errors over a long period of time. Scientists, like other people, are pretty competitive. We always want to be the first to come up with the right idea, so it means you try to shoot holes in other people's ideas. Ones that don't work eventually get knocked out. And when there are multiple good ideas, people are pretty honest about it. Now, this competitiveness also means that some people hold onto ideas that appear unworkable, but (1) that's easy to recognize and (2) it's part of the system that continually tests all the ideas. Science is adversarial in some ways, even though it is also a cooperative enterprise. It's also worth distinguishing physics research from medical research in a couple of ways. First, the body is a really complex system, so a lot of research looks at correlations more than causation. It's necessary, and it's the way we advance knowledge, but it can lead to apparent reversals. But what I think is also important is that medical research gets reported widely very quickly, so sometimes I think the public gets a perception that the science is settled by one study when really a lot more work is needed. Of course, this is not my area, so that's just an outsider's impression. Physics doesn't usually get that kind of scrutiny. [/QUOTE]

Verification