Azhir Mahmood  🚀 🤖 🧬 🧠 🪐

it's a "reality" only for those who subscribe to it, live by it, sustain it and fight to protect it. The reason I'd like them to publicly make that statement: they must admit and OWN the current toxicity of the system, and the corresponding public health impact ..

as they are accountable to the public, and hence have to defend the stance that 1) current toxicity paid for by the public tax $$ and well-meaning donations is actually acceptable, 2) research backs up the claim "there is no better alternative", which requires to evaluate options

I don't know why they haven't done any of those things, but one of my hypotheses is that relevant academics in power (guiding the funding agencies and policy institutes) actually did not give sufficient damn about it.. worse they benefit from it and don't want to change ANYTHING!

So if the public funding agencies sat down & devised a proper study on what's the best way to run the academy, and conclude the current toxic ponzi scheme is the right, moral and ideal way to do science with public tax $$, I won't ever bring this up againhttps://twitter.com/Raamana_/status/1105145417212284930?s=20 …

What about using national science output as experiments? There is huge heterogeneity in policies and outcomes.

what heterogeneity are you referring to? didn't you guys agree "the reality" and "main game in town" is the prestige oriented system dictating all of the academy and science?

Uk is hot on h index, us hot on grants, some countries have more or less ubi like funding.

Scientists seem to like the us system. so what do we do right? Can we do more of it? What should we experiment with?