As far as wanting shit "in return" for their work, that's what I was attacking. As a scientist, you work for the good of mankind.THAT'S your compensation.
Now, that seems worded a little too demanding, as if you leashed up the poor scientist and crack a whip every now and then and go "mush!"
Quote from: Sandtrap on February 20, 2016, 03:08:37 PMNow, that seems worded a little too demanding, as if you leashed up the poor scientist and crack a whip every now and then and go "mush!"Well, I'm just saying. You have to be incredibly passionate about your field of work in order to be a scientist, I would imagine. In order to be a scientist, there has to be something inside of you that compels you to be one, because it's not easy, and in a lot of ways, it doesn't seem very fun. You really have to want to do that sort of work.So, I don't think I'd have to start cracking whips--but when people start prioritizing their Maseratis (or whatever the fuck stupid shit they buy) over the unearthing the secrets of reality, it's sort of disheartening. It pisses me off, and it's hard for me to sympathize with that mentality.
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 20, 2016, 02:47:50 PMOne of the primary barriers to research is lack of funding, though.Well, sure, but that doesn't mean we have to start crossing your palms with silver just to give people what they fundamentally deserve to have access to from birth.
One of the primary barriers to research is lack of funding, though.
If you're doing science because you want money, and reward you're not a good scientist
Do you think everyone has a right to all the raw data or analysis in the papers? Or just the conclusions? Because conclusions in laymen's terms are always available in the free abstract of the paper.
Quote from: BaconShelf on February 20, 2016, 03:20:24 PMIf you're doing science because you want money, and reward you're not a good scientistIs it unfathomable that passionate scientists could want to also be able to afford to provide for their families or themselves, plan for the future or retirement, or even be able to continue to do research?
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 20, 2016, 03:19:26 PMDo you think everyone has a right to all the raw data or analysis in the papers? Or just the conclusions? Because conclusions in laymen's terms are always available in the free abstract of the paper.For the purpose of verification, maybe, yeah, I don't see why not. I'm not into blindly accepting conclusions at face value just because an authority says so--if the raw data and analysis were available for scrutiny as well, I think that would be enlightening in a number of ways.If you disagree, please give me an example of research you'd personally keep from the public eye, for any reason.
I'd expect a good scientist to do what they do out of a passion for the subject and a wish to further our collective knowledge of the world around us. If getting money is your primary reason for becoming a scientist, you should probably think about your priorities.
Is it unfathomable that passionate scientists could want to also be able to afford to provide for their families or themselves, plan for the future or retirement, or even be able to continue to do research?
As long as people agree that research needs to be done, we'll provide them the resources to do it. Right?
Pretty torn on this, to be honest.
As far as wanting shit "in return" for their work, that's what I was attacking. As a scientist, you work for the good of mankind. When a scientific breakthrough occurs, you've just edged humanity a little bit further towards uncovering the mysteries of the universe.THAT'S your compensation. That should be good enough.
This isn't even about free information, it's about scientists having access to publications for their work. On one hand, researchers should have access to what they need for their work (and they typically do through subscriptions made by whoever is funding them), but on the other, research is difficult and requires funding, and scientists deserve to get paid for their work despite some indefensible claims that access to information is a human right.
"All papers on their website are written by researchers, and researchers do not receive money from what Elsevier collects. That is very different from the music or movie industry, where creators receive money from each copy sold," she said.
Straight from the article. The researchers aren't being paid anyway, the publisher pockets 100% of the money.
[QuoteResearch and creating papers like this doesn't come cheap, and people don't usually spend tremendous amounts of time and effort just to better humanity. They want something in return.Boohoo. Fuck them.
Research and creating papers like this doesn't come cheap, and people don't usually spend tremendous amounts of time and effort just to better humanity. They want something in return.
I don't know if you're aware of this but people have to actually feed themselves and their families. Not everyone lives in a snow globe like you do.
Quote from: CIS on February 21, 2016, 09:03:28 PMI don't know if you're aware of this but people have to actually feed themselves and their families. Not everyone lives in a snow globe like you do.Except that's not their only form of income. This has been discussed.
And? Why shouldn't they be allowed to profit from their research? What's wrong with that?
Quote from: CIS on February 21, 2016, 09:15:46 PMAnd? Why shouldn't they be allowed to profit from their research? What's wrong with that?Furthering mankind's knowledge of the universe IS profit.
I'm talking about monetary profit here. Why shouldn't a scientist be allowed to advance themselves financially through their work?
All the science papers in the world
