Call it scientific Bursty Work, independent science, whatever, but I continue to monitor the progress of Pawel Szczesny over at Freelancing Science with a great degree of interest. It’s not only that we have some of the same scientific interests (and for some reason I have been able to make friends with a few Polish scientists), but his current efforts portend a future that should be welcomed with open arms.
I’m neither a genius nor a big shot but I have bunch of ideas I consider cool and which I’d like to get funded. It looks like for that I need to step out of academic money-flow system, and apply for funding to people who are less conservative and who can take a risk of supporting non-established ideas
It’s pretty clear that in the web space, the transition to a new way of approaching problems has happened. Today, companies or individual projects can get of the ground in a pretty short time, with a small amount of funding. Bioscreencast is an example of taking an idea and making it a reality. Of course, to scale a project or idea, it takes time and money, but the sources of funding, the scale of funding and the nature of implementation are a lot different than they used to be. The same is true for in silico science. There is little reason why some of the same concepts cannot be applied. The monetization models will have to be different. You are not going to get the same level of scale and usage, at least in terms of number of people, that you would for a consumer web app, but it would be worth our while to think of an appropriate reward system.
What about bench science and projects? Well, that’s a trickier question, but there can be collaborations between bench and computational scientists, and even between bench scientists. We have the beginnings of an infrastructure that can support that. What’s lacking are the incentive models and the education. That said, it’s early days. Scientists are not early adopters by any means, but there are enough of us now that in a few years, especially if we get some of the challenges of data sharing, publication, etc sorted out.
You know, I kinda like the Nike tagline
Just Do it
There are still challenges, but until those who have the interest and willingness to take risks start exploring this space, it’s not going to happen. Which is why I admire Pawel and Chemspiderman, who are also examples of going this route at different points in a career. Pawel is getting started, while Antony has been round the block. I suspect over the coming years others might also take this route. Perhaps web working life scientists, or co-working life scientists (co-working in some lab space) will become a decent chunk of the life science populace.
I am afraid, but I strongly disagree. In particular the "Just do it" slogan, and the whole mindset behind it, is something I find abominable. The world would be a better place if people (and in particular scientists) would stop "just doing it", but rather consider very thoroughly the possible consequences of their actions. And I am not only talking about obvious consequences like environmental damage, but also about things like the public perception of science and scientists.
Obviously, my problems with the "just do it" attitude do not really apply to Pawel's situation. I really admire his courage. Who knows, maybe it is even going to work in Poland. In places that I am more familar with, like e.g. my current country of residence (Germany), this approach would certainly not be viable. Apart from formal problems (no grants without a PhD, no grants without a position secured throughout the grant period), there will always be the scepticism by grant agencies and reviewers asking why this person has chosen a non-traditional career path. The explanation usually seen as the most likely one is that the person has failed in the usual acadmic world and has to resort to a non-traditional approach. I don"t think that this explanation applies to Pawel, but people will always assume this at first - it is going to be an uphill battle.
My use of the slogan was in a narrow context, one around taking career/life decisions. For example, you have an idea and want to start a company. Should you dilly dally, or if you believe in your idea, go for it? I admire people who have the courage, in the face of most likely failure to go for it. Each situation is different of course and one has to take into account other responsibilities etc, but having met a number of entrepreneurs over the years my opinion is that not taking action is the easy way out.
On the bigger subject, the actions of scientists and science, that was not the context at all. Scientists should always be aware of the consequences of their work.
Yes, maybe I am a bit too touchy here. It is just that these three words always make me cringe. Apart from that, it seems like I'm more the dilly dally type.
The new science
Call it scientific Bursty Work, independent science, whatever, but I continue to monitor the progress of Pawel Szczesny over at Freelancing Science with a great degree of interest. It’s not only that we have some of the same scientific interests (and for some reason I have been able to make friends with a few Polish scientists), but his current efforts portend a future that should be welcomed with open arms.
In a blog post Pawel writes
It’s pretty clear that in the web space, the transition to a new way of approaching problems has happened. Today, companies or individual projects can get of the ground in a pretty short time, with a small amount of funding. Bioscreencast is an example of taking an idea and making it a reality. Of course, to scale a project or idea, it takes time and money, but the sources of funding, the scale of funding and the nature of implementation are a lot different than they used to be. The same is true for in silico science. There is little reason why some of the same concepts cannot be applied. The monetization models will have to be different. You are not going to get the same level of scale and usage, at least in terms of number of people, that you would for a consumer web app, but it would be worth our while to think of an appropriate reward system.
What about bench science and projects? Well, that’s a trickier question, but there can be collaborations between bench and computational scientists, and even between bench scientists. We have the beginnings of an infrastructure that can support that. What’s lacking are the incentive models and the education. That said, it’s early days. Scientists are not early adopters by any means, but there are enough of us now that in a few years, especially if we get some of the challenges of data sharing, publication, etc sorted out.
You know, I kinda like the Nike tagline
There are still challenges, but until those who have the interest and willingness to take risks start exploring this space, it’s not going to happen. Which is why I admire Pawel and Chemspiderman, who are also examples of going this route at different points in a career. Pawel is getting started, while Antony has been round the block. I suspect over the coming years others might also take this route. Perhaps web working life scientists, or co-working life scientists (co-working in some lab space) will become a decent chunk of the life science populace.
Further reading
Monkchips
Bursty Work
The Scientific Entrepreneur
Technorati Tags: Entrepreneurship, Bursty Work, Web Working, Science, Funding