Interesting article, although I didn’t see anything particularly scandalous. Unfortunately, you’ll hear very similar stories if you talk to someone working as a researched in a university. I think...
Interesting article, although I didn’t see anything particularly scandalous. Unfortunately, you’ll hear very similar stories if you talk to someone working as a researched in a university. I think a lot of the issues she encountered are endemic to academia.
Was there necessarily issues to begin with? The reality is that there no lack of grad students and postgrads who are researching the “next big thing”. Most of them are dead ends. That’s fine,...
Was there necessarily issues to begin with? The reality is that there no lack of grad students and postgrads who are researching the “next big thing”. Most of them are dead ends. That’s fine, that’s science, but a university has a limited budget and it has to divide that. For every Karikó, there’s dozens of projects that were killed and would have led to nowhere.
Obviously in hindsight we should have thrown money at her and her research, but that’s hindsight for you. I should have bought Tesla stock a decade ago.
The article didn’t get into whether or not it was clear to people in the field that her research would have results. If it were incredibly obvious and Penn still refused to fund her, then that would be an oversight. But no such details - and generally it’s hard for any kind of research to be that kind of obvious slam dunk.
There are plenty of issues. For one, it is fairly political and tends to favor people who have connections or are already well-known. There’s an echo chamber and feedback loop of sorts, if you’re...
There are plenty of issues. For one, it is fairly political and tends to favor people who have connections or are already well-known. There’s an echo chamber and feedback loop of sorts, if you’re already well established it is easy to get published, even if it’s garbage. And the higher number of publications you have, the more important you’re considered and the more funding you get. If you’re a relative unknown, it can be impossible to get funding and get published, so you have to work for someone who else who has the gravitas (deserved or not) and “pay your dues” for years, all the while they get the credit for your work. The research should be judged on its own merit, but it isn’t. There’s also some sexism and racism that can come play depending on the culture. Language and cultural barriers can also apply. I imagine Kariko ran into these issues, but again she isn’t unique in that regard.
Sure, but those weren't what was discussed in the article, so if they were problems she faced, we wouldn't know either way. The only part that was focused on was Which a priori seems like a...
Sure, but those weren't what was discussed in the article, so if they were problems she faced, we wouldn't know either way. The only part that was focused on was
If you’re a relative unknown, it can be impossible to get funding and get published
Which a priori seems like a necessity. There's an unlimited number of unknowns in the world, you certainly cannot give all of them funding.
The article was basically the academia version of the "wow blockbuster declined to buy netflix for $50m haha" story.
Interesting article, although I didn’t see anything particularly scandalous. Unfortunately, you’ll hear very similar stories if you talk to someone working as a researched in a university. I think a lot of the issues she encountered are endemic to academia.
Was there necessarily issues to begin with? The reality is that there no lack of grad students and postgrads who are researching the “next big thing”. Most of them are dead ends. That’s fine, that’s science, but a university has a limited budget and it has to divide that. For every Karikó, there’s dozens of projects that were killed and would have led to nowhere.
Obviously in hindsight we should have thrown money at her and her research, but that’s hindsight for you. I should have bought Tesla stock a decade ago.
The article didn’t get into whether or not it was clear to people in the field that her research would have results. If it were incredibly obvious and Penn still refused to fund her, then that would be an oversight. But no such details - and generally it’s hard for any kind of research to be that kind of obvious slam dunk.
There are plenty of issues. For one, it is fairly political and tends to favor people who have connections or are already well-known. There’s an echo chamber and feedback loop of sorts, if you’re already well established it is easy to get published, even if it’s garbage. And the higher number of publications you have, the more important you’re considered and the more funding you get. If you’re a relative unknown, it can be impossible to get funding and get published, so you have to work for someone who else who has the gravitas (deserved or not) and “pay your dues” for years, all the while they get the credit for your work. The research should be judged on its own merit, but it isn’t. There’s also some sexism and racism that can come play depending on the culture. Language and cultural barriers can also apply. I imagine Kariko ran into these issues, but again she isn’t unique in that regard.
Sure, but those weren't what was discussed in the article, so if they were problems she faced, we wouldn't know either way. The only part that was focused on was
Which a priori seems like a necessity. There's an unlimited number of unknowns in the world, you certainly cannot give all of them funding.
The article was basically the academia version of the "wow blockbuster declined to buy netflix for $50m haha" story.
I hope that Penn distributes a significant portion of their $1.2 B+ windfall to Kariko and Weissman, especially after their (mis)treatment of Kariko.