Talk of “gain-of-function” research, a muddy category at best, brings up deep questions about how scientists should study viruses and other pathogens.
Loading...
Do we know how many research groups, government agencies are still studying SARS and AIDS? In Asia, Europe, America, there are many many labs working out of the spotlight to tackle the unanswered challenges. These scientists at some top-notch institutes and think tanks, most are under paid, focus on finding the cure for infection, understanding viral reservoirs, and improving treatment strategies. The knowledge gained from these research has been instrumental for both modern medicine and public health decision making.
These people have good chance to make great money but they choose not to. During my stint at J&J, most if not all big name molecular biologists refused the offer that could bring them very serious money. They would agree to collaborate with J&J but still work in their own labs taking typical professors’ salary.
My company also tried to hire a few neuroscientists in Canada when we productized a new biosensor based surgery procedure to remove brain tumor, we met the same story. The money we offered easily allows them to comfortably retire in just a few years but they said no, though agreed to collaborate and made immense contribution.
One friend in my network told me the similar story. Hers shop has an European operation, where she found challenging to convince scientists to take full time position. There was one exception, a scientist said he would join unless my friend launches a not-for-profit entity. She agreed and that scientist only took 95K Euro… an incredible low salary.
It’s not my intention to prove researchers do not wish to pocket good money. I am trying to say the opposite - There are many of them do not prioritize money over research and their passion.
Why so?
Many scientists we worked with have the grand vision of doing greater good to this world.
They value the impact of social responsibility much more than simply exchanging their expertise for money. They are determined to devote their limited life to the most significant groundbreaking science discoveries that benefit us, the human kind.
They believe the excellence of research must be produced from a place where academic freedom and independence are respected -- this isn't always the case in commercial shops; Therefore "赚钱和搞科研" isn't always finding harmony.
Every time I am thinking about them, I could not help admiring and paying wholehearted respect. Yes, many of them are not making 400K but needless to say they are the pillars of the society. They made the choice of “为了科研而甘守清贫“ at the same time advancing the world for betterment.
We can comprehend the first-generation of immigrants need to give in for survival. This however isn’t the case for next generation. After all, this world offers many things much bigger than “getting in CS and making 400K“.
Corps would ask scientists to sign confidentiality and NDA (non-disclosure agreement). They won’t allow scientists to disclose their secret sauce of trade, meaning they cannot publicly share or announce their scientific discoveries, which are regarded as conflict of interest. For many scientists, this is unethical in a way that the connection and collaboration between community members often result in more findings.
These IP restrictions severely limit how scientists can use the work. More often than not corps will claim the full ownership of the findings, papers, source code if any, lab books produced by the scientists during their employment. When they leave the shop, they leave everything behind.
Corps are typically focused on a very specific research areas. This isn’t necessarily aligned with what the scientists want to pursue in a long term and how they prioritize their own research goals.
前面的一个匿名朋友说的很好 “适当的逐利 也无可厚非。校园里的学术研究基础研究 也不是人人都适合的，其中的艰辛也只有过来人才知道，也不是想象中的那么浪漫”
投身科研就要做好 “我本将心向明月，奈何明月照沟渠” 的准备，基础研究尤其如此。说到浪漫，我几个在NASA的同学已经让北美的明月照了20多年沟渠了，用他们的话说“科研人的浪漫，全宇宙都看得见”。和其他行业无异，取得大成就很少见，但是守得住寂寞清冷，心有所往并为之付诸一生的科研人的朴素情怀并不少见。
前面还有匿名的朋友说到关于学术腐败作假。学术界的作假或者名誉黑幕确实很多，从时间上往远的说有美国NIH，NCI在80年代迫于政治正确和投资blood bank的巨头的要挟从而隐瞒艾滋病的流行，然后到不道德的剽窃法国人的研究成果；近的有《bad blood》这本纪实里写到的Elizabeth Holmes和她的骗局以及给她站台的政客，再近的就是COVID期间美国CDC的腐败，在《premolition》这本纪实里也有提到。
这和企业界腐败作假一个类型，比如Enron的财务作假, Wells Fargo Fraud Scandal, Theranos Fraud (女主刚被判了)，大众emmissions Scandal，还有美国最大的猪肉生产商Smithfield （被中国的双汇接盘了）买通政府以及学术专家，恶意排放hog waste的案子，在《wastelands》里被详细披露，等等等等。。。 要因这些而抵制或者恐惧“天真无邪的孩子会掉入泥坑”，咱也不要工作了。都说人间黑暗，也不能说咱人都不能做了是吧？
人不能改变世界，只能改变自己，重要的是自己和孩子们在其中怎么才能维持自己的道德底线，这个道理不用多说，这里都是聪明人。
最后回一下yh_abc，我写下这篇主贴，是看了坛子里另外一篇的标题里提到 “。。没有什么为了科研而甘守清贫这样的事。。。” 所以聊一些自己的经历和感受，不针对也不布道，原帖我就不贴了，感兴趣自己去找吧。“为了科研甘受清贫” 不是我的原话，也不代表我的立场，我文中和标题里都用了引号以示引用。
我通篇的主题是说，这世上还是有一些有趣的灵魂，拿着一份普通薪水，可以单纯的为了科研而拒绝高薪的。引用一位合作伙伴常说的话 "Every scientist should have a dream larger than life."
所以你很可能是误读了。至于你提及的中国领导用的借口等等，就更和我的主题无关了。我举双手同意国家应该提高科研人员待遇，特别是做基础研究的。我也举双手同意“做科研的就该穷”的想法是可耻的。
I always believe the best job is "you are paid to do what you love" and I also believe there is a pay threshold, beyond which those hard-core scientists / researchers cannot care less.
However, my key point is there is such a threshold (not necessarily fixed, but exists for people as social beings), which if not reached, it is a "tragedy" to both the scientists and the society, because below this threshold, the scientists (and their families) can hardly live a decent life and thus can hardly make the full dedication to their beloved research work. So from public policy perspective, the public fund should support those dedicated scientists, allowing them to have a decent and above-average life standard for the betterment of the society as a whole.
My bad to mis-undertand you as I initially thought you are promoting the slogan of "为科研守清贫". Thanks again for your clarification and am very impressed with the facts you mentioned in your post.