Loved the teaching. Loved the science. Couldn't take the politics. Couldn't take the tenure stress. That about sums it up.
Another one bites the dust. It's not always about dueling metaphysics. Sometimes it's just about politics and money. I can't comment on this story better than He Who Lives It (and makes the best of it), so here you go…
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
| The Design Matrix: A Consilience of Clues by Mike Gene |
 |
| Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body |
 |
| Catalyzing Inquiry at the Interface of Computing and Biology |
 |
| System Modeling in Cellular Biology: From Concepts to Nuts and Bolts |
 |
| The Plausibility of Life By Marc W. Kirschner and John C. Gerhart |
 |
| Agents Under Fire by Angus Menuge |
 |
| Life's Solution by Simon Conway Morris |
 |
| Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life by Hubert P. Yockey |
 |
| The Fifth Miracle by Paul Davies |
 |
| Nature, Design, and Science by Del Ratzsch |
 |
| Origination of Organismal Form by Muller & Newman |
 |
| Biased Embryos and Evolution by Wallace Arthur |
 |
| Rare Earth by Peter Ward and Donald Brownlee |
 |
| The Privileged Planet by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards |
 |
| The Way of the Cell by Franklin Harold |
 |
| The Volitional Brain by Benjamin Libet |
 |
| Evolution in Four Dimensions by Eva Jablonka & Marion Lamb |
 |
| The Evolution-Creation Struggle by Michael Ruse |
July 16th, 2007 at 11:00 pm
What? Academic freedom isn't at stake?
Comment by agam — July 16, 2007 @ 11:00 pm
July 17th, 2007 at 12:01 am
No, agam. Academic freedom apparently isn't at stake. Grant money to the university is at stake, and that's hard to come by these days for disciplines that don't garner those grants.
Biology isn't one of those, as grants for that research (if it's not entirely negative or isn't using verboten means) are abundant. I 'grew up' in physics. It's always been a poor stepchild for Big Bucks, or became that way once the quest for the moon was over. I know because my Dad lost his job at the age of 55 when suddenly there were thousands of physicists and engineers out of work. He went to GE.
This actually works out well for gigacorps, especially in an economy like ours where they can turn around and rent those same scientists out for gub'ment projects for three times as much money! Everybody (except the scientists) wins.
A generation of scientists seem to think they've a birthright to tenure and cushy retirement these days. That's not how it works, the recent past is a fluke. It always goes to the highest bidder, the geniuses seldom get the dividends.
I don't mind that it's happening to a new generation - some of the most brilliant scientists I've ever known drove ski shuttles in season and tended bar off-season. Unemployment doesn't cost IQ points, you know. And Knop's already accepted the job, so he doesn't even have to suffer that indignity.
Comment by Joy — July 17, 2007 @ 12:01 am
July 17th, 2007 at 1:47 am
Good quote,
That could explain the extreme orthodoxy that of often grips science.
Comment by Jehu — July 17, 2007 @ 1:47 am
July 17th, 2007 at 2:24 am
Joy:
Nothing could be further from the truth. The vast majority of grant proposals in biology get rejected.
Comment by Raevmo — July 17, 2007 @ 2:24 am
July 17th, 2007 at 7:29 am
Hi Joy,
Interesting. So, is it maybe possible that Gonzalez didn't get tenure due to his failure to land an NSF level grant after all?
Comment by Aagcobb — July 17, 2007 @ 7:29 am
July 17th, 2007 at 9:36 am
Getting tenure is really tough these days - not only do you have to be a 1st class scientist with a great reputation in your faculty, but you also have to bring in the dollars. There are very few tenure positions on offer, so it's an unfortunate fact of life that not everybody makes the grade.
This guy is doing the right thing. He's moving on. On the other hand, I feel sorry for Guillermo, who is now more famous for his ID beliefs than any of his contributions to science. An association with the Discovery Institute and their chums can be really toxic for your career in science.
Comment by salimfadhley — July 17, 2007 @ 9:36 am
July 17th, 2007 at 9:49 am
Jehu:
Actually, it's just the opposite. Nobody gets tenure by towing the party line. That's why seminaries are such hotbeds of lunacy. You don't get tenure by saying: You know, that old Martin Luther guy pretty much got everything right. You have to be radical. The sciences are the same, but with more checks and balances. Just doing the same-old same-old will not get you tenure at a research university.
As others have pointed out, tenure is tough. I once read in Physics Today that a graduate student in physics has about the same chance of ending up as a tenured prof as a college football player has of making it to the NFL.
Comment by David Heddle — July 17, 2007 @ 9:49 am
July 17th, 2007 at 11:05 am
David Heddle,
I completely disagree. You don't get funding or tenure by being radical. You get these things by having good ideas and quality research within the accepted paradigms and views of your department and organizations that grant the funding.
Comment by Jehu — July 17, 2007 @ 11:05 am
July 17th, 2007 at 11:36 am
David Heddle:
The market for scientists - and science professors - comes and goes with the applications end of things. It has always been thus, at least ever since science moved out of gentlemens' country estate libraries and into academia and the real world. The most difficult area to find a place in the real world is theoretics. There just isn't much call for professional thinkers in this world, so they generally never get out of school.
A physics student can usually find a high-paying job working in engineering or the several commercial applications of high-end physics. Just as a geologist can generally get high paid work with Haliburton or Exxon-Mobile. Such jobs pay much better than academia ever did, but it requires real work. I think it's incumbent upon university level advisors to help steer students toward what will work best for them in their lives, and despite resistance from bureaucrats after money, this should very much include counseling to avoid Ph.D.s that will be useless to the person. It's hard to find an entry level position in corporate America if you're overqualified. This is why so many Ph.D.s I've known end up tending bar - bar owners aren't impressed by sheepskins. They just want to know how fast you can mix a drink.
Thus a Master's level in geology or physics or mathematics is way more valuable a stock in the real world than a Ph.D. Doctoral candidates need to be those who are most likely to spend their lives teaching. When a university has an overabundance of post-grad instructors going for Ph.D.s, it's a sure bet that half or more aren't going to find tenured positions. That's a disservice to them, to academia, to real world economics, and to science.
Biology enjoys a bit of a different position these days (these trends usually shift over decades, so university advisors should try to keep ahead of the game). There are hundreds of well paying jobs available for post-docs in corporate biology all over the world. Pharmaceuticals, crop engineering and other aps for gene-splicing, military contracting, research medicine, bio-prospecting, technologies development… and the positions are growing faster than academia can produce graduates.
This is what I took away from Knop's farewell to academia. He was recruited more than a year in advance, offered a good position at more money than he'd ever make in academia, and he made the indicated trade. He won't be suffering, and no one need feel sorry for him. Heck, he may end up with a piece of several patents that make him millions.
Applied biology isn't concerned with these academic debates that boil down to Dueling Metaphysics. They're going for the gold, and if a design approach works better than an assumption of random happenstance, they'll opt for design every time. It's still science, and the discoveries coming out of corporate basement labs are every bit as 'important' as those coming out of university labs. They just usually come attached to proprietary censorship and exclusive patents. Meaning that academia isn't the first to know or the best to run with it.
Or, as 'they' say, "Those who can do, do. Those who can't do, teach." Or something like that… §;o)
Comment by Joy — July 17, 2007 @ 11:36 am
July 17th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Hi Joy,
Would the "design approach" constitute praying to the ID to mutate the organism, or humans engaging in things like genetic engineering or selective breeding, as humans have done for millenia?
Comment by Aagcobb — July 17, 2007 @ 12:09 pm
July 17th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Aagcobb:
How about observing a non-designed outcome resulting from RM + NS first? Need some examples of extrapolations that substititute for oberved outcomes?
Comment by Bradford — July 17, 2007 @ 1:27 pm
July 17th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
The last sentence makes obvious sense but are you saying there is no consensus against which "radical views" are assessed?
Comment by Bradford — July 17, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
July 17th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Hi Bradford,
You would first have to apply Dembski's test for CSI to determine if the outcome was actually a result of RM+NS first, right? So I assume that Dembski is probably in big demand for help from bio-firms, making me wonder how he has time to teach at seminaries.
Comment by Aagcobb — July 17, 2007 @ 1:50 pm
July 17th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Bradford,
Of course–what I am saying is that you must do something novel, and it must be defensible. It cannot be novel merely for the sake of being novel, at least not in science.
For example, if you go to a university, join a research group, and perform many useful experiments of the same type the group has been doing, you'll be in trouble. One rule of thumb is: if you are Dr. Jones and your supervisor writes on your review that "our experiment could not have succeeded with the herculean efforts of Dr. Jones" you should be nervous.
And something that is novel but not defensible"”that is it cannot be tested"”would be viewed as lunatic fringe. There are some short term exceptions to this as new ideas are fleshed out. For example, String Theory was given a free pass for a while"”but its lack of connection to experiment has started to turn the tide against it, I believe.
Of course, there are always exceptions and special cases. However, when it comes time for tenure you want to present a clear record of research that was identifiably yours, and different in some substantive way from what you did for your Ph.D. and what others are doing.
Comment by David Heddle — July 17, 2007 @ 1:55 pm
July 17th, 2007 at 1:57 pm
How about observing a non-designed outcome resulting from RM + NS first?
Not at all. My point was outcomes are assumed without being observed.
Bio-technology enterprises are intelligently designed endeavors.
Comment by Bradford — July 17, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
July 17th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
David,
Physics would not be the realm within which mischief is likely to be found but based on the studies I've come across I cannot say the same for neuro-science. What can be tested and whether this is representaive of a lunatic fringe is very much an open question in that field.
Comment by Bradford — July 17, 2007 @ 2:01 pm
July 17th, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Hi Bradford,
Excellent point, no intelligently designed biology endeavor would enlist the help of William Dembski!
Comment by Aagcobb — July 17, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
July 17th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Why would an enterprise, requiring technical skills related to biomaterial, need the services of a mathematician? OTOH, if you are marketing a campaign based on the idea that biology already has a coherent version of origins, employing non-biologists in the effort would make eminent sense.
Comment by Bradford — July 17, 2007 @ 2:15 pm
July 17th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
Raevmo, I accidently clicked the wrong thing in adding my comment to your post. I'll repost your information from the hole then add my comment. Sorry about that.
Comment by Bradford — July 17, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
July 17th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Raevmo wrote:
Bradford:
Physics would not be the realm within which mischief is likely to be found but based on the studies I've come across I cannot say the same for neuro-science.
Name of Jan Hendrik Schön ring a bell? What's your evidence that "mischief" is more rife in neuroscience than in physics?
Comment by Bradford — July 17, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
July 17th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Raevmo:
Studies attempting to link metaphysical values to an evolutionary origin. If nothing else the conclusion is vapid unless you have already figured out what values are non-evolutionary in origin.
Comment by Bradford — July 17, 2007 @ 2:24 pm
July 17th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Bradford:
That is hilarious. It's like saying that attempting to link meteorites ("falling stars") to a physical origin is vapid unless you have figured out what meteorites are non-physical in origin.
Comment by Raevmo — July 17, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
July 17th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Hi Bradford,
Agreed, thats why Dembski is a DI fellow and there is no real-world applicability of his CSI filter. I'm still left wondering, however, what the "design approach" by bio-tech firms that Joy alluded to is. Was it developed by Behe or any other prominent IDist? How indebted is the "design approach" to the design inference?
Comment by Aagcobb — July 17, 2007 @ 2:34 pm
July 17th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
In the case where the physical origin is assumed what is the point of stating it? Is there an evolutionary origin to your comment? Is there an evolutionary origin to atheism, fascism, freedom of speech? So what is your point?
Comment by Bradford — July 17, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
July 17th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Aagcobb:
The lawyering business must get a little slow this time of year, so playing troll on the internet starts looking like fun. Unless you have anything pertinent to add to the discussion take it elsewhere.
Comment by Joy — July 17, 2007 @ 2:40 pm
July 17th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
Aagcobb:
Intelligence is used to effect marketable bioproducts. That's not hard is it? All intelligent beings are capable of generating a design approach.
Comment by Bradford — July 17, 2007 @ 2:42 pm
July 17th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Bradford:
No, what is your point? If one is trying to explain the existence of moral codes from an evolutionary perspective, then of course one assumes for the time being that there is an evolutionary origin. Just like one would assume a physical origin of meteorites, to see how far that assumption would work out, even though it's possible that meteorites have been poofed into existence.
Comment by Raevmo — July 17, 2007 @ 2:51 pm
July 17th, 2007 at 2:55 pm
Raevmo:
Or if one is trying to assert the evolutionary cause of anything. Evolution dunnit. Wow! Impressive results.
Comment by Bradford — July 17, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
July 17th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
Bradford:
Your being impressed or not by evolutionary science means two things to me: (1) diddly (2) squat.
Comment by Raevmo — July 17, 2007 @ 3:03 pm
July 17th, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Your being impressed by evolutionary pseudo-science amounts to the same.
Comment by Bradford — July 17, 2007 @ 3:07 pm
July 17th, 2007 at 3:17 pm
I would add one more thing. The one thing not shown by the evolution of moral values, religion etc. is an evolutionary process.
Comment by Bradford — July 17, 2007 @ 3:17 pm
July 17th, 2007 at 3:50 pm
Back to the topic. For what it is worth, I was lucky enough to get tenure myself two weeks ago and I can sympathize a lot with Knop's feelings. The last year has been quite stressful since I still needed to get enough grant money, and it's such a lottery whether you get the cash or not. Your future plans are really in the hands of a small number of people, and that can be an unbearable thought. Plus we got a new dean, and I used to have some serious disagreements with him in the past, so I was really worried about that since he had the last word about the tenure decision. Thankfully it worked out fine for me, but it's an ordeal, unless you're really brilliant and get loads of grants from the start. Most importantly, it's such a pain for a boyfriend/girlfriend couple of scientists to get longterm jobs at the same university. You first have to spend years living apart before it finally happens. You gotta love the science to be able to accept that.
Comment by Raevmo — July 17, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
July 17th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Congratulations, Raevmo!
Comment by Aagcobb — July 17, 2007 @ 4:13 pm
July 17th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
Thanks, Aagcobb!
Comment by Raevmo — July 17, 2007 @ 4:20 pm
July 17th, 2007 at 5:26 pm
Hi David,
You wrote…
I would be curious of your thoughts on the Penrose-Hameroff model I have been presenting. Is it novel science or lunatic fringe in your estimation?
While recognizing that that I am very much the layman (my training is engineering), it seems that too many pieces fit together which are ripe for experimentation.
Have the sciences become too compartmentalized?
In my Doctor Who comment, I am suggesting a reality that should be considered a given (as I understand General Relativity) but is it still too radical of an assumption for biologists?
Joy has expressed a frustration along these lines in the past. If biologists are looking to novel ideas to explore, maybe they need to look beyond the artificial barriers they set up. Physicists too, might want to consider refocusing some of the energy in chasing elusive strings and consider the possibilities of organized quantum activities at the larger scale, say in DNA strands and microtubules.
Excuse my detour into soap box advocacy, but I would like your honest (brutal if necessary) opinion on how far out on the lunatic fringe this is and why.
Thanks,
TP
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 17, 2007 @ 5:26 pm
July 17th, 2007 at 5:37 pm
Hi Raevmo,
Let me add my congratulations too. My professors tried to talk the younger me into going the academia route. I was too greedy.
In a way, I envy you. I am forced to be content with trying to write thought provoking posts in blogs.
Good Luck to you.
Comment by Thought Provoker — July 17, 2007 @ 5:37 pm
July 17th, 2007 at 5:51 pm
Thanks TP. I think your choice worked out just fine for you.
Comment by Raevmo — July 17, 2007 @ 5:51 pm
July 17th, 2007 at 6:46 pm
Raevmo,
Glad to hear it's working out for you. It's tough to make it in that arena, and I'm happy you survived the process.
I was certain from a young age that I wanted to be a scientist until I saw my mentor rejected for tenure. He was the most brilliant professor I ever had and a superb teacher and inspiration for the brighter and more capable students, but did not bring in enough grant money. I realized then I would not be pursuing an academic career.
Comment by mcromer — July 17, 2007 @ 6:46 pm
July 18th, 2007 at 5:30 am
Tenure generally reflects a commitment to academic excellence and a track record of original and successful research.
Congratulations, may I ask what your subject is?
Comment by salimfadhley — July 18, 2007 @ 5:30 am
July 18th, 2007 at 6:39 am
mcromer:
Thanks.
I've seen that kind of thing happen. Or worse, that someone was denied tenure for personal reasons. Before students embark on a PhD project, I always advise them that the long-term odds of academic employment are not great. On the other hand, for people in my field (theoretical biology/population genetics) it's usually not too difficult to find employment elsewhere. Computing/programming/math skills are always in demand.
Comment by Raevmo — July 18, 2007 @ 6:39 am
July 18th, 2007 at 6:46 am
salim:
Thanks and see my previous post. If I remember correctly you're doing financial math. Option pricing, stochastic differential equations and stuff like that I suppose. I know a guy who made a bundle in finance before going back to academia and apply his skills to evolutionary models.
Comment by Raevmo — July 18, 2007 @ 6:46 am
July 18th, 2007 at 7:36 am
Hi Bradford,
Obviously noone denies humans manipulate biological material. I'm just pointing out that the "design approach" used by biotech firms owes absolutely nothing to the ID movement.
Comment by Aagcobb — July 18, 2007 @ 7:36 am
July 18th, 2007 at 9:30 am
Thanks and see my previous post. If I remember correctly you're doing financial math. Option pricing, stochastic differential equations and stuff like that I suppose. I know a guy who made a bundle in finance before going back to academia and apply his skills to evolutionary models.
Yes, that stuff is my bag - I work for the research department of a European bank. It's like doing research anywhere, except that the cycles are shorter and the rewards are better. I'm more of a computer-scientist than a math-guru. I think I qualify as a professional researcher.
What gets me about the whole conversation (see the Dr Truth) thread, is that there are many of us on this site who are engaged with serious research of one sort or another. I am told that my scientific worldview is fundamentally flawed because of my "materialist" bias, and yet what I do seems to work. It passes the ultimate test which is that it makes my employer money.
Even in the job of modeling things as irrational as financial markets, the assumptions of materialism seem to be perfectly adequate. Indeed, attempts to apply 'spiritual technology' to the business of predicting markets have famously resulted in financial ruin.
In my experience, the only people who cry outrage at "materialism" are those who wish to elevate their own para-science to the more well-regarded level of mainstream science.
Comment by salimfadhley — July 18, 2007 @ 9:30 am