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?
Comments
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.
Why would that be a bad thing?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
5/15/2023 5:46 AM
Hint: We have that competition now, and we are losing.