This essay covers it so well !! I've been trying to understand how the three research methods correlate to each other. Now I do ;-
> Academia: the more CNS publications, the merrier. That's all the research we want to do 😁
> Industry: we will ONLY do research if there's customers already ready to pay for it 🤑💰
> ARPAs/FROs: we will do research even if it's unpublishable and has no customers 😈 BUT the only way for it to make financial sense is for someone ultra rich funds us🥲 (government or billionaires )
In the 60's through the late 70's there was a zeit geist within academia which focused on interdisciplinary learning and research. Some institutions even created formal "departments" with artists, humanities, science faculty who were to work or consult in teams or other structures. Alas, the pub/perish disease was endemic costing the loss of scholars who risk or didn't fit the mold leaving bits and pieces across the academy. Today with the rise of artificial intelligence, some are finding that "weird" scholarship is emergent. Many discoveries of Nobel quality are led by academics with degrees in two or more disciplines. Billionaires are funding "no strings attached" multiyear programs in the spirit of ARPA and other "blue sky" research. There is even suggestions of AI think tanks (an AI Society?) and collaboration of humans and AGI bots, now ubiquitous within various public and private sectors
Curious that HHMI Janelia is missing here. I think it would have been good to include simply because it reached its very ambitious founding goal essentially - which may/should impact the overall conclusion here a bit.
Fair point! The main reason I left them out is because it is chronologically a bit out of step with the others; Janelia was founded in 2006 versus the others that were in the 2020's. I think I'd love to someday focus a post on Janelia specifically, since there's likely a lot more rhetorical meat there given how long they've been around.
Great essay on new models for life sciences R&D! You mention Calico, but what of Altos Labs and Arena BioWorks? Or The Astera Institute and CZI? Are these just too new to tell?
The little tangent on the „scientific marketing“ (as you call it) was an interesting one. To me, it often appears that communication on „Big and Important Things“ is more often than not „shiny & flashy“ but somehow lacks the substance you carefully carved out as an element of success of these new scientific institutions.
I was wondering if you have more examples of that kind of communication, done right?
And, if I may, could you clarify if by „scientific marketing“, you refer to „marketing backed by science“ [1] or rather refer to „marketing targeted at scientific talent“ (which I believe is the case)?
This is an interesting topic and a fascinating start, but the topic needs both deeper treatment and sharper focus. The discussion should consider the goals of its participants, and non-characterizations of 'traditional' models.
For example, if you asked any aspiring grad student where they'd want to do research, it's probably one of the major academic institutions, despite all of its flaws. Why do these 'newcomers' despite massive funding not draw the top names in academia?
What about the previous version of these that were funded by Dotcom 1.0 billionaires (the Paul Allen Institute)
In short, it's hard to understand what exactly you're saying about this new breed of institution.
This essay covers it so well !! I've been trying to understand how the three research methods correlate to each other. Now I do ;-
> Academia: the more CNS publications, the merrier. That's all the research we want to do 😁
> Industry: we will ONLY do research if there's customers already ready to pay for it 🤑💰
> ARPAs/FROs: we will do research even if it's unpublishable and has no customers 😈 BUT the only way for it to make financial sense is for someone ultra rich funds us🥲 (government or billionaires )
In the 60's through the late 70's there was a zeit geist within academia which focused on interdisciplinary learning and research. Some institutions even created formal "departments" with artists, humanities, science faculty who were to work or consult in teams or other structures. Alas, the pub/perish disease was endemic costing the loss of scholars who risk or didn't fit the mold leaving bits and pieces across the academy. Today with the rise of artificial intelligence, some are finding that "weird" scholarship is emergent. Many discoveries of Nobel quality are led by academics with degrees in two or more disciplines. Billionaires are funding "no strings attached" multiyear programs in the spirit of ARPA and other "blue sky" research. There is even suggestions of AI think tanks (an AI Society?) and collaboration of humans and AGI bots, now ubiquitous within various public and private sectors
Curious that HHMI Janelia is missing here. I think it would have been good to include simply because it reached its very ambitious founding goal essentially - which may/should impact the overall conclusion here a bit.
Fair point! The main reason I left them out is because it is chronologically a bit out of step with the others; Janelia was founded in 2006 versus the others that were in the 2020's. I think I'd love to someday focus a post on Janelia specifically, since there's likely a lot more rhetorical meat there given how long they've been around.
Great essay on new models for life sciences R&D! You mention Calico, but what of Altos Labs and Arena BioWorks? Or The Astera Institute and CZI? Are these just too new to tell?
The little tangent on the „scientific marketing“ (as you call it) was an interesting one. To me, it often appears that communication on „Big and Important Things“ is more often than not „shiny & flashy“ but somehow lacks the substance you carefully carved out as an element of success of these new scientific institutions.
I was wondering if you have more examples of that kind of communication, done right?
And, if I may, could you clarify if by „scientific marketing“, you refer to „marketing backed by science“ [1] or rather refer to „marketing targeted at scientific talent“ (which I believe is the case)?
[1] as in „the systematic study and application of marketing activities and their impact on customer behaviors“ (https://www.ttec.com/articles/mastering-art-scientific-marketing)
This is an interesting topic and a fascinating start, but the topic needs both deeper treatment and sharper focus. The discussion should consider the goals of its participants, and non-characterizations of 'traditional' models.
For example, if you asked any aspiring grad student where they'd want to do research, it's probably one of the major academic institutions, despite all of its flaws. Why do these 'newcomers' despite massive funding not draw the top names in academia?
What about the previous version of these that were funded by Dotcom 1.0 billionaires (the Paul Allen Institute)
In short, it's hard to understand what exactly you're saying about this new breed of institution.
Why?
I won't get into the reasons