New posting! This one's about optics, but nothing to do with microscopy - instead it's asking whether we should perhaps view #scientists and not knowledge as the real (primary) product of #academic #research...and whether this provides a better rationalisation of the level of societal investment. Are research papers actually a by-product?
https://totalinternalreflectionblog.com/2023/05/30/whats-the-by-product/
@TIR_scienceblog that research might be basic research, it might be applied research. They might do it in the private sector, the public sector, or in the third sector. They might help the research effort as bench scientists, as software engineers, as managers or as policy makers.
As individuals they might decide research isn't for them. But in aggregate they are invested in because overall they will contribute to knowledge (in its broadest sense).
@TIR_scienceblog i think we should also be a bit careful when we talk about private sector research. Part of the (very correct) push in recent years to highlight that paths other than academia are perfectly legitimate, and count as successes, has been to portray moving into industry as almost the normal path. But in many fields there are actually fewer good jobs in industry than there are in academia, which can leave some disappointed.
@TIR_scienceblog i think that the people that pass through my lab will be the most important thing to come from my work. More important than any contribution to knowledge i make, or is made by people while in my lab.
However, it doesn't make sense to say that scientists are the most important product of doing science in general. For if thats the case, what is science other than a self-perpetuation machine? The scientists i help are important because they will go on to do research - ie science.