World Science Scholars

2.7 Turning a Thought Experiment into Reality

discussion Discussion
Viewing 32 reply threads
    • Authorship can often cause behind-the-scenes difficulties for scientists. These problems are magnified for a project with as many researchers as LIGO. As big international science becomes more commonplace, do you foresee changes to the ways in which scientists author papers and are credited for their work? Do you think the current model of scientific funding plays a role in maintaining the status quo of scientific authorship? Explain your answers.

    • As Professor said in Office Hours, “it is a hard question to answer”

      • Yes, change will not occur in a short period of time.
        Funding projects play a vital role

    • I think change is inevitable but will come about slowly.

    • A lot of it may have to do with how funding is received, but also due to how restricted academic journals become. I believe research done with taxpayer money must be public, and scientists shouldn’t be granted money primarily by the number of papers they publish or their success, because it creates an obstacle for younger researchers. We need to appreciate science has a value for itself regardless of how fast we can extract an economic advantage from it, science has value because we value knowledge as we value art.

    • It’s a difficult question to answer, but I think everyone should do the same, whatever the decision.

    • I don’t know enough about the current model to formulate an opinion. But I believe big international science offers great opportunities for collaboration that lead to great findings

    • It is easier for an individual to get funding if he has a long list of papers with his name on them. This is clearly the problem. Individuals should be able to gain reputation simply by having worked in a particular project.

    • According to the ICMJE, an author can be considered as such whenever he or she satisfies four fundamental criteria:

      1.Significant contribution to the ideas and design of the research project, generation of experimental data, and their analysis or interpretation;
      2.Intellectual contribution, such as drafting or critical revision of the work;
      3.Final approval of the manuscript before the submission process, and
      4.Accountability for all the aspects of the research project, including accuracy and integrity.

    • Hmm, I think change is inevitable but will come about slowly.

    • I’m coming from the industry and all of the projects I was involved with have been those multi-corporate ones. In that world the role of funding is essential in order to keep sthe status quo in collecting references for the companies and individuals. In any case one cannot underestimate the enormous potential of career boost of contributing to the modern international scientific megaproject. Nowadays there seems to be the very same innovation boost in e.g. LIGO as in industrial megaprojects. In modern era every new innovation generates two or three more or less feasible new innovations. Unfortunately this innovation boost is not necessarily always measured in units of published scientific papers. In my opinion those side product innovations of any scientific projects should be developed for the markets. One example would be this course which is one side product of the LIGO-project. Hopefully this course generates one or more feasible innovations.

    • Very informative, detailed and optimistic of future endeavors. I believe many advances and discoveries will be made in the near future.

    • I feel that laws, with deeper emphasis for the development of idea, should be in place for streamlining this process

    • hopefully as we upgrade out technologies we can detect more sensitive gravitational waves

    • I would like to see more collaboration taught at the 5th and 6th grad level. I would like to see colleges partner with local K trough 12 to teach scientific methodology and be involved with experiments to garner interest in young adults’

    • yes

    • Although funding may always play a role in scientific authorship in the near future it may hold a position of less significance . The key scientist at the head of any research should always be recognised and credited. I believe if changes are made to the way scientist author papers it will be to ensure everyone who makes significant contributions in a project is acknowledged although this is a more innate issue ,people tend to hold one person in mind when thinking or referring to research completed by a whole group.

    • politics here in the US plays a big role in funding the projects that scientists could conceive…if it were not because of politics, scientists would’ve already tried to option to envision at building a Dyson Sphere. But who is going to fund such project at the rate that projects like LIGO or CERN get funded by politics.

    • As big international science becomes more commonplace, do you foresee changes to the ways in which scientists author papers and are credited for their work?
      I do foresee changes to the ways in which scientists author papers and are credited for their work. The large scale projects will require top world talent for the experiments and science that is running these systems. The smaller contributions will create a subclass of papers that will lead to the rise of data analysis, modeling, equipment design, and construction work. Much like techniques in the medical field are narrowed down to a specialized task on a much larger scale contribution.
      Do you think the current model of scientific funding plays a role in maintaining the status quo of scientific authorship?
      Today I think funding plays a role. In the coming years, I think endowments will begin to realize they have a greater obligation to more narrowly define how funding will be doled out. Data analysis models for example will create more highly specialized applications and tools that might be used in other fields. This might be the original scope of the funding aspect but can be funded on its own part.

    • Change will occur, albeit maybe not rapidly. Funding does play a role in the status quo of science authorship since more funding probably means more involvement.

    • Yes

    • Yes

    • Should focus more on science, theories rather than market oriented science.

    • Yeah it’s a bit of problem for the beginners.

    • Yes we should be patient enough to observe changes

    • Do you foresee changes to the ways in which scientists author papers and are credited for their work?

      I do, as the summation of human intellect and the pursuit of knowledge is what leads them to these discoveries. Perhaps it would be better to attribute it to the entire human domain of knowledge than to one individual. We often take credit for things that we would have never been able to accomplish without the entire system of operational structures that enables us to have the ability and privilege to engage in such pursuits.

      And so we should give just as much weight to the cleaner as we do to the researcher, as we do to the professor. Because often not, they are the ones that truly enabled the endeavour to happen. We all stand shoulder to shoulder when we look at the mountain of knowledge that lay before us, and in the attempt to surmount this knowledge, in climbing to these peaks and seeing these valleys, we often leave evidence behind, we often encounter things we would have never have dreamed of. And maybe it was left by someone who was unknown, known.

      Freedom isn’t free, and the sentinels stand and walk the tomb of the unknown soldier, so perhaps we should also attribute science to the unknown scientists too.
      Maybe it would be better to give these advancements to the wealth of the people, instead of to the wealth of one or an organization. That after all, that would be what these scientists and soldiers would want, wouldn’t it? Intellectual property is a messy topic, but it doesn’t have to be if it doesn’t exist.

      Do you think the current model of scientific funding plays a role in maintaining the status quo of scientific authorship? Explain your answers.

      I do believe that it restricts the development of research. The model of authorship, of ownership, creates a long list of checkboxes to tick, and this stifles the process. It needs to change. Funding should be allocated based on the merit of the endeavour, not on the profits that a company stands to make from it. We allow individuals huge some of the wealth, but we at times lack sufficient funds to further the entire wealth of human knowledge, even to teach kids or develop nations.

      We sacrifice efficiency for avarice, we sacrifice lives for greed, and we fail to cherish what truly matters, the interpersonal connections and achievements we make together as a planet of species all interconnected and woven into a complex and holistic system.

      “The Dalai Lama, when asked what surprised him most about humanity, answered “Man! Because he sacrifices his health in order to make money. Then he sacrifices money to recuperate his health. And then he is so anxious about the future that he does not enjoy the present; the result being that he does not live in the present or the future; he lives as if he is never going to die, and then dies having never really lived.”

      And so we sacrifice a lot of people, for something as frivolous as a fancier car, or a nicer vacation, or a bigger house. Maybe it starts with reworking the system of ownership. And maybe science could be the first to take the reins of the future and relinquish its control, we are here to help one another, and to grow together. It pains me to imagine the human ingenuity losses to starvation and hunger, just so we could live in a bit more comfort, we sacrificed education for momentary amounts of dopamine, and that is a true tragedy of man.

    • If only money were no object, just think of the research and discoveries that could be made.

    • FOIA will prioritize a person’s remembrance over non-disclosure.

    • If funding continues to be mainly based on the number of papers published, that number will necessarily grow massively and so, both the quality of the papers and the pair-review process will be much worse. This will progressively contaminate science with a growing noise of extremely speculative ideas bordering even on pseudoscience. In my opinion, it is already starting to happen.

    • Hello Ladies and Gentlemen,

      Funding decides what form of business exists.

      This decides if group efforts prevail or if individuated efforts are a focus.

      When we see how the TVA developed nuclear technologies, we also see a fellow called Rickover decided all reactors will be compatible with his Nautilus submarine power use.

      So we have military naval use designs and civilian production designs, all decided by Rickover and his submarines.

      In seeing another crew more closer to LIGO that Prof. Turner likely knows, Rai Weiss and his two associates developed the forerunners of today`s massive LIGO.

      That organization form stresses three leaders.

      Civilian efforts can contrast with military efforts. But all involved do deserve recognition. This is the wisdom of military medals. They create loyalty.

      When our rewards do not materialize, we seek other regimes to legitimize and recognize our work.

      This was Saddam Hussein`s secret. He knew all people have a price. He also bought the efforts of many.

      Depending on national security of a project, recognition can secure loyalty.

      And…loose lips sink ships.

      Cold war era fights between Soviet and Americans over names of the periodic table of elements are infamous. As international efforts create diverse cultural workplaces, we see all the ghost empires, but hopefully also the compensation that allows for pride of work.

    • Apologies again to Prof. Rai Weiss for mistaken identity & thanks for the course!

    • great

    • without funding nothing gets built to detect anything so research slows to a crawl or stops entirely, I don’t think it should be a matter of number of papers but instead quality and scope of potential knowledge gain. Personally I study and research to gain knowledge and that is its own reward and if someone else wants to use that knowledge fantastic.

    • Yes, and it is inevitable

You must be logged in to reply to this discussion.

Send this to a friend