Scientists Defend Merit in Science
For first time, scientists organize to push back against identity politicshttps://indefenseofmerit.org
Why was the paper published in the Journal of Controversial Ideas?
As the Wall Street Journal op-ed explains, the authors attempted to publish their paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) as a counterpoint to several perspectives the journal had published. They were advised to remove the word “merit” from the title because, according to the journal’s editorial board, “This concept of merit, as the authors surely know, has been widely and legitimately attacked as hollow….” This prompted the authors to explain in the paper, “not only is meritocracy in science a controversial idea, in some circles the very existence of merit as a concept is questioned.” “Ultimately,” says Krylov, “PNAS rejected the paper on grounds that appeared to be largely ideological.”
The question relevant for the blog is has the ideas of merit also been compromised at the labs?
15 comments:
Our language is under attack. Basic terms like, “organic”, have lost all scientific meaning. I applaud the authors for taking a stand and pointing out that one may be woke, and one may be a scientist, but one cannot be a woke scientist.
Merit in science has been gone for a while, success is largely based on bringing in funding, even if the science involved is worthless. Since merit as a concept no longer exists, it logically does follow that the system is discriminatory against underrepresented groups.
Also in a merit-based system support for actual human science would have to be phased out in the coming years as AI exceeds human understanding and productivity. This would be good in that it would reduce taxes, and renew public faith in our scientific institutions, while vastly increasing the quality and quantity of scientific output. At the same time, universities would have students who are genuinely interested in learning, as career prospects diminish. It could be part of a plan to transition our entire society into an AI technocracy, where diversity and inclusion are celebrated.
Merit is a weird term. It is often used to justify elitism, keep a an old boys club going, promoting fashionable but not very deep science.
It promotes competition and forces out people that do not fit exactly into the mold of what a scientists looks like.
" into an AI technocracy, where diversity and inclusion are celebrated.""
Why would that be a bad thing?
5/01/2023 8:31 AM
Spoken as someone who has no capabilities that anyone wants to fund or hire. Try appealing to what people who might support you really want, instead of what you want.
Old boys club... are we talking about Livermore, Los Alamos or Sandia this time???? As some of the employees down in the trenches are trying to find out what kind of meaningful work we are actually accomplishing. Then again some of us are not really important and just a number to management.
I find the idea of merit as used in science to be a real problem. It is used to bully people, claim someone is better than another person, deny grants, promote arrogance and sand box work. People do not like scientists for a reason and they claim merit is some kind value that makes science work or is effective. This whole "publish a big result" " make a black hole " listen to me because I am so smart." The current version of science we have is just another system of power to give power to certain groups or allow certain people to play in a sandbox and go on about how great they are. I applaud those who are questing the use of merit in science we need to more of that at the labs.
Spoken as someone who has no capabilities that anyone wants to fund or hire. Try appealing to what people who might support you really want, instead of what you want.
5/02/2023 6:50 PM
Spoken as someone with unearned privilege who has benefited from the capitalistic regime made so you can profit while others are excluded. Try appealing to a broad level of diverse skills that make the place run better and is more humane as opposed to a place that runs the most efficient to feed a profit machine for profit for the very few. Merit has no meaning when it is defined in such a way to benefit only the few.
We don't have to worry about merit in science at the labs anymore, I found there isn't much left anyway. The issue has basically resolved itself since anybody with even a modicum of merit has left for greener pastures.
I can see why it is difficult to keep focus on job technical performance merit. The DOE compliance structure and processes, things that were created to facilitate the work have now become more important than the work itself. It is a simple case of conflating the compliance/process with the work; goal shifting. The labs have never been agile as a whole, but there have been isolated programs that were agile. Not anymore. The only merit that exists is in following the compliance/process structure.
It probably won’t be noticed since the new generation seems to have been brought up to defer to authority, or use mediators to solve interpersonal problems. Not all, but most. “They must know what they are doing, because they are in charge!” The same with titles bestowed upon them.
5/05/2023 10:59 AM: The thing is, if you don't pay tribute to the authority of the legions of unproductive paper pushers that the labs have hired over the past 20 years, they will use their authority to shut you down. For example, need your laser safety system upgraded or replaced? Well, put in a ticket and wait three years while you lose your funding and get fired because if you put a 1" deep hole in a wall we will fire you on the spot. Or my personal favorite, no charge code is valid for land line phones, except a few special ones, but you must have a land line to call 911 in the event of an emergency. If you use the wrong code, we'll fire you for violating arbitrary accounting rules as if you stole 100 lb of copper. But sorry, we don't have a suitable code for you. See the problem?
5/08/2023 9:39 AM
Sounds like a typical "I don't want to understand the rules and I don't understand why they should apply to me anyway" attitude. Pretty typical at the labs.
5/11/2023 7:23 PM
"I don't want to understand the rules and I don't understand why they should apply to me anyway" attitude. Pretty typical at the labs.
It’s not the rules; it’s the unassailable firewalled bureaucratic framework that the rules live in. It’s the fact that this isolated framework has now become more important than the hands on direct mission work. You may feel safer with this byzantine bureaucratic framework, but it’s not flexible, and works best with what has already been done. It’s hostile to innovation and the kind of risks that will need to be taken in the future.
5/08/2023 9:39 AM Over the past 30+ years, the labs have been made up of two fractions: weapons and national security. If you work in weapons, which is well funded and hasn't had any real innovation or deliverables or timelines since 1992, you develop this Stockholm syndrome that manifests as a love of bureaucratic process over actual progress. It becomes impossible for you to comprehend how anybody else might need to get something done. The rest of us working on solving real, pressing, time sensitive national security problems are expected to get answers quickly and efficiently. When that becomes impossible, the US tax payer and citizen losses out because, instead of actual national security innovation, the labs only deliver auxiliary support jobs. This seems fine to people until they eventually realize that there are now 10 supporting paper pushers for every actual scientist or engineer. Plus it gets worse, because those paper pushers don't just take their overhead funded paycheck and stay quiet. No, they use their power to impede all necessary progress by developing a swamp of overly burdensome, irrational, ineffective and conflicting rules and regulations. This is why we now fund the labs so handsomely, and yet receive so little in output. That's all great until we have actual competition again, such as from China or Russia.
That's all great until we have actual competition again, such as from China or Russia.
5/15/2023 5:46 AM
Hint: We have that competition now, and we are losing.
Post a Comment