The God Delusion & The Virus of Faith

All the news that's new and approved. We want your opinion, no matter how wrong it is.

Moderator: EG Members

User avatar
Brainpiercing
Crusher of Dreams
Posts: 1717
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 9:29 pm
Location: somewhere far beyond

Post by Brainpiercing »

I'll be joining the publication rat race at University, soon. I've been around here long enough to know how it works. I'm not saying people aren't doing their best, they are. A lot of people are working VERY hard to get good results, every day. There are a lot of very ambitious and smart people in every science faculty.
But sometimes results don't come. Sometimes they are not quite as good as imagined.
Increasing the yields of a reaction is the first little cheat people employ. Another favourite is quoting others without giving credit. But the worst thing is the way people exploit other people to get more publications out. Professors will put their names under publications of their PhD students or postdocs, even when they never had any influence on the work. Of course mostly they did influence the work, and then it's fine, but black sheep exist everywhere. The question is this: Should they be the main credited author of a publication, when basically ALL of the work was done by other people? Of course, they probably gave important tips, steered their people in the right direction, told them what to pursue and what to drop. But does that warrant getting the main credit? This is what I call the "Academic penis extension".

A lot of things go wrong in sciences. Scientists are every bit as human as everybody else, they may be more intelligent than your average Joe, but that doesn't make them better people. Sometimes I think many of the great names in the sciences must be the worst kind of pricks, because it takes one hell of an ambition to be successful nowadays. But they are successful, which justifies that, and noone will ask later if Corey, Grubbs, Schrock, Sharpless, etc. treated their PhD students like shit. The students get a great name as a doctor father, and the professor gets the credit.

All that being said, I still say that advancing the sciences is one of the most important things any human can ever do. And even though scientists may be flawed, at least you can deal with them logically, something you will never be able to do with any avid believer. There is, however, nothing at all romantic left in the sciences. The times when you could just ask questions and find answers are over, and they have been over for a LONG time. Sciences are self-sacrificial to the extreme if you want to end up as a great name - or tag along one.

And don't ever connect me to organic chemistry, organic chemists are no longer human. :evil:

j/k
Brainpiercing
"Beer cures poison" - (almost) Guts.
Image
User avatar
Albator
Hikikomori
Posts: 1226
Joined: Sun Nov 27, 2005 11:10 pm
Location: DC

Post by Albator »

I still don't know what is your qualification, doesn't matter I guess. However what you say is true. It all comes down to grant proposals, and of course ambition. I will just say that these people are STILL scientists, despite acting like pricks and potentially destroying carreers. THey are fucking scientists.

I will just add that most of the scientist are aware of what you are saying. A first author is generally considered like the one that did the work. Professors will always be last authors, because 1- they supply financement 2- they are part of the peer review process 3- thay bring some sort of "identity" to the paper, to make it more recognizable 4- They are a big part of the brain process, as the 1st author is usually the slave at the bench.

Of course this is the general idea, but the good thing is that perseverance, going to meetings, etc will usually get you recognized for what you really represent to a bundle of work. And make the people using you look bad and losing some of their rep.
Image
User avatar
Brainpiercing
Crusher of Dreams
Posts: 1717
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 9:29 pm
Location: somewhere far beyond

Post by Brainpiercing »

Concerning my qualifications: I'll be finishing my diploma exams in February, then start my thesis and most probably do a PhD after that, since basically all chemicists here do that. I've also worked on the student council for years and have been a member of various university committees that deal with structuring of chemistry studies. I've taken my time, I've kept my eyes open. I have lots of friends who are doing research, and I know all the professors of our faculty and many of their workgroup members.
Brainpiercing
"Beer cures poison" - (almost) Guts.
Image
Post Reply