John Gillaspy @NSF: We use the textbook test. If your research is wildly successful, will it be in textbooks 20 years from now? #aqsw2019pic.twitter.com/Vj7xFhhfsz
-
Deutsch & Feynman's papers. Shor '94. Teleportation. Quantum crypto. Reversible computing. Quantum noiseless coding. Even error-correction, AFAIK. AFAIK the most important papers in each case were unfunded, or funded by non-project based fellowship type funding.
In 2006 I wrote a list of my 10 favourite papers in quantum information. I then looked for patterns in them, just for fun. The two patterns that stood out: _none_ was funded by a project-based grant; and none of the principal authors except Feynman was a prof at a research U.
-
-
This utterly shocked me. At the time I was a prof at a research U with multiple project-based grants. Reflecting on this was a big part of why I left the field and academia. I think the approach taken by NSF and other agencies leads to minor, incremental work.
-
(There are exceptions, e.g., they deserve a world of credit for LIGO. But in general I think their practices need to be redesigned from scratch.)
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
You can't just say that and not share the list.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
-
Academics Are The Keepers Of Past Acquired Knowledge. They Are Not Able To Create On Their Own Anything New. They Are Researchers, Which Means They Are Paid All Their Life To Search But Not To Find. If Not They Would No Longer Have Funding.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.