• ormr@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    The problem is not that one has to communicate the significance of research. However since the people with money don’t understand the science, they can easily be mislead. And there are also big trends when it comes to funding so you can participate in the buzzword olympics to secure your funding. And this is where you leave the path of just communicating your research and its potential honestly.

    The second point where this Nobel prize winner is very right is that it’s all about networking, all about names. I don’t know why we can’t just publish research under a pseudonym, a number would suffice. This would make publishing and reviewing less susceptible to bias.

    • hellofriend@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      Same reason why we name amps and volts after Ampere and Volta. It’s about recognition and legacy. Imagine you discover some new form of matter, a specialized region of the brain, a key component of time travel, or some algorithm that accurately describes any human interaction. Something revolutionary. Would you be content if it wasn’t named for you? Ormr Matter, Ormr’s Area, Ormr’s Theory of Inverse Relativity, Ormr’s Equation for Social Simulation. This is really just the extreme case, but I think it works well to demonstrate the point.

      • samus12345@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Would you be content if it wasn’t named for you?

        Yes. I recognize that most people don’t think this way, though.

    • suction@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Very well put. That’s a big reason why the world is on fire: People trusting bad actors too easily because they know how to talk good.