Over at Backreaction, Sabine has posted a lengthy essay on the problems of treating scientific research in economic terms:
I vividly recall the first thing my supervisor told me when I was an undergrad: "You have to learn how to sell yourself." Since then I have repeatedly been given well meant career advises how to survive on the scientific marketplace (most of which I ignored, but I'm still around, so I guess I'm not doing too badly).
Many of my friends and colleagues in physics regard these marketplace tactics as an annoying but necessary part of the job. To begin with, this concerns me because I feel that there is a gap between how science is, and how it should be - and an unnecessary gap in addition. But more importantly, the application of economical considerations to scientific research is inappropriate, and the reason why I did not take these career advises is that I don't want to support strategies that will hinder scientific progress on the long run. So, if you were hoping for some career advises, you're on the wrong blog.
Though comparisons between science and economics often have a grain of truth in them, they are doomed to fail when extended naively. Whether or not you believe in the infallibility of the 'Invisible Hand' [1], scientific theories are not sold like candy bars. If one uses an economical model to analyze the dynamics of research programs, one has to be aware of the limitations of this analogy.
She's got some excellent points (which is to say, she mostly agree with stuff I already believe), particularly regarding the time scale for evaluating research results. It's worth a read.
- Log in to post comments
Economics is the study of scarcity. And no matter what the economic environment is, there will always be scarcity in the most important resource in science - attention. So, "selling" the work is vital.
I'm reminded of a quote from a Bruce Sterling novel: "We've got to get back to doing real science--the kind that generates patents!"
The types who use managementspeak phrases like 'market of ideas' are usualy complete dicks.
You need to impress people that make decision about your career and funding. (Sometimes these are non-technical types). So one has to learn how to present his results and his human qualities. The point is not to become a salesman, a science salesman is one step from a charlatan.