This WVA situation is very scary. It feels like things are escalating. And this: “Because they are working to transform what is considered foundational” is the scariest part!
I definitely hope that scientists will pay attention and advocate against this kind of “restructuring”. I know we can find the time for this kind of thing, because I saw it during the pandemic and in response to movements like BLM. But I am afraid that we are all kept so busy with so much work (and self-promotion), and different domains are so siloed at most universities, that scientists will find it too easy to ignore things. But we are in the slowly boiling pot, too!
I’m looking forward to your upcoming newsletters. One thing I’d love to hear you write about (maybe you have already) is something I saw a lot in the last couple of years (and discuss a bit in my newsletter that I hope to get out later today)--a big upsurge in students motivated only by applied work and a decline in interest in basic or fundamental science. Are you seeing this as well, and what might be behind it?
I'm not sure about this possible change in student orientation? When I say I'm not sure, I mean I really am just not sure. I haven't seen this shift but also I'm not necessarily positioned to detect it. I know that "use-inspired" research is getting higher priority with NSF, though. Over the years my interpretation of "applied" and "basic" research has evolved and I think they can be happen at the same time. I've seen presentations from various folks at NSF showing a figure with two axes, one is "quest for basic fundamental understanding" and the other is "use-inspiredness." Some research is about basic understanding but not use-inspired, the example they give is Neils Bohr. Then some is use-inspired but not about basic understanding, the example they give is Thomas Edison. Then there is research that is about building basic understanding but also is use-inspired, and the example they give is Louis Pasteur. I think it's possible that an evolution in student interests in science that is applied to real-world challenges might have something do with the enormity of the specific challenge that we're facing with climate change and the emergence of science denialism - and it's on us to connect the dots between research that makes fundamental discoveries and what can be applied to the challenges we face.
This is interesting to read, and I agree that applied/basic are not mutually exclusive. Maybe the most successful research programs will be ones that can incorporate both in a real way (not just grant application hand-waving). In my experience, students seem to get that fundamental discovery is important, they just don't want to do it. They want to be closer to the application. I agree with you about climate change being a huge driver here. I saw that switch in my Plant Genetic Engineering course over time.
This WVA situation is very scary. It feels like things are escalating. And this: “Because they are working to transform what is considered foundational” is the scariest part!
I definitely hope that scientists will pay attention and advocate against this kind of “restructuring”. I know we can find the time for this kind of thing, because I saw it during the pandemic and in response to movements like BLM. But I am afraid that we are all kept so busy with so much work (and self-promotion), and different domains are so siloed at most universities, that scientists will find it too easy to ignore things. But we are in the slowly boiling pot, too!
I’m looking forward to your upcoming newsletters. One thing I’d love to hear you write about (maybe you have already) is something I saw a lot in the last couple of years (and discuss a bit in my newsletter that I hope to get out later today)--a big upsurge in students motivated only by applied work and a decline in interest in basic or fundamental science. Are you seeing this as well, and what might be behind it?
I'm not sure about this possible change in student orientation? When I say I'm not sure, I mean I really am just not sure. I haven't seen this shift but also I'm not necessarily positioned to detect it. I know that "use-inspired" research is getting higher priority with NSF, though. Over the years my interpretation of "applied" and "basic" research has evolved and I think they can be happen at the same time. I've seen presentations from various folks at NSF showing a figure with two axes, one is "quest for basic fundamental understanding" and the other is "use-inspiredness." Some research is about basic understanding but not use-inspired, the example they give is Neils Bohr. Then some is use-inspired but not about basic understanding, the example they give is Thomas Edison. Then there is research that is about building basic understanding but also is use-inspired, and the example they give is Louis Pasteur. I think it's possible that an evolution in student interests in science that is applied to real-world challenges might have something do with the enormity of the specific challenge that we're facing with climate change and the emergence of science denialism - and it's on us to connect the dots between research that makes fundamental discoveries and what can be applied to the challenges we face.
This is interesting to read, and I agree that applied/basic are not mutually exclusive. Maybe the most successful research programs will be ones that can incorporate both in a real way (not just grant application hand-waving). In my experience, students seem to get that fundamental discovery is important, they just don't want to do it. They want to be closer to the application. I agree with you about climate change being a huge driver here. I saw that switch in my Plant Genetic Engineering course over time.