The other day I realized how absurd modern academics has become when thinking about an exchange with a friend, who is a named chair full professor at a large university.<p>For the past couple of years, they've been talking about the outcomes of a grant they've had (there's much to be said about this grant in itself). Basically, this friend thinks the whole topic is BS, a conclusion they've come to because of their experience doing analyses and trying to publish results from the grant. It's not venting because of the workload: this person can articulate a very logical explanation for why the whole topic area is BS based on results they've obtained.<p>Recently, however, they were talked by some colleagues into writing an extremely large grant using some preexisting resources. What's the topic? The same thing they think is BS. So they've gone to a federal agency to request permission for millions and millions of dollars to research a topic that they think is essentially empty. Why? Because it's a very "hot" research area at the moment and is likely to bring in funds to the university.<p>What struck me was when I was listening was now understandable it seemed to me that they would write this grant, given how active of a research area it is. Based on my own experience as a faculty member this made sense. But at some point, I realized how ridiculous it is: if a researcher really thinks that X is problematic, shouldn't they be writing <i>that</i>?<p>I am skeptical the project in the linked site will take off but hope it will anyway. So much is completely broken in contemporary academics, and it seems it gets little attention out of certain circles. When it does get attention, it's handwaved away or becomes a political device.
From the reference digging to the experimental bench to the data analysis, you make way more progress when you are working on what you really want to.<p>For those whose true interests lie squarely where today's academia is going, it would be hard to beat such a large well-ensconced system.[0]<p>But there still might not be enough research opportunities to go around, it seems like the odds of a young scientist ending up building a life's work are lower than ever, even in a well-supported field.<p>So it's not only those far from the mainstream who could benefit from an alternative.<p>And these are two different groups.<p>It would be really good if traditional scientific institutions could be about doubled in number by adding freshly-built ones which couldn't help but have some 21st century foundations to grow from. In a somewhat predictable way.<p>While at the same time completely dissimilar alternatives equal in number, almost like a safety net for the gifted who fall through the remaining cracks in the academic system, or who never manage to crawl up through those same cracks against the current to begin with.<p>So you can get more breakthroughs in unpredictable ways.<p>And get things that people really want because when that's the motivating factor you get more, and you get more for your money.<p>[0] It may be hard to beat now but that doen't mean it might not be better accomplished in the long run. The harder things like this are, the sooner you need to get started, like decades ago. So I already admire the New Science operators.