How Life Sciences Actually Work: Findings of a Year-Long Investigation

Alexey Guzey · 15 Aug 2019

Others here said this too

Peer review is one of the things genuinely wrong with academia, not a safeguard that mostly works.

Their wordsSpecific parts of academia that seem to be problematic: rigid, punishing for deviation, career progression; peer review; need to constantly fundraise for professors.

Also said by Adam Mastroianni

Read the piece on guzey.com ↗

4 korrents from this piece ↓

Alexey Guzey did not write this page.

Every claim below was made in this piece, quoted word for word and numbered in the order the piece makes them, so you can read it there rather than take our word for it. The sentence above each quote is our reading of the claim, not their wording. Each quote was checked against a stored copy of the page at build time; where the two differ, the quote is the fact.

Our reading
Academia has serious problems, but they are not as catastrophic as they look from outside it.

Their wordsacademia has a lot of problems and it could work much better. However, these problems are not as catastrophic as an outside perspective would suggest.
Our reading
Scientific progress in biology is not slowing down.

Their wordsMy (contrarian, I guess) intuition is that scientific progress in biology is not slowing down.
Our reading
Peer review is one of the things genuinely wrong with academia, not a safeguard that mostly works.

Their wordsSpecific parts of academia that seem to be problematic: rigid, punishing for deviation, career progression; peer review; need to constantly fundraise for professors.
Our reading
Short-termism and a lack of funding for young scientists are smaller problems in academia than outsiders assume.

Their wordsParts that seem to be less of a problem than I initially thought: short-termism; lack of funding for young scientists.

Keep reading

The other pieces are the ones whose claims are worded most like this one's. That measures language, not agreement: they may argue the opposite.