Peter Higgs believes he would be regarded as “unproductive" in today’s academic system. He simply wouldn’t be able to “survive” in #science.

On his way to Stockholm to receive a Nobel Prize in 2013, he said the following in an interview to Guardian:

#AcademicTwitter #phdlife
- He wouldn’t expect to make a breakthrough in today’s academia.

Why? Because expectations to "collaborate and keep churning out papers" are too high

"It's difficult to imagine how I would ever have enough peace and quiet in the present sort of climate to do what I did in 1964"
- He said he would've been fired had he not been nominated for the Nobel in 1980.

Why? He published fewer than 10 papers after his groundbreaking work in 1964.
Why wasn’t he kicked out?

His university (employer) decided that he “might get a Nobel prize – and if he doesn't we can always get rid of him".
- Higgs said he became "an embarrassment to the department when they did research assessment exercises".

Why? Because when the department said "Please give a list of your recent publications”, Higgs replied he had none.
- When he retired in 1996, he was convinced that science is no longer done in the way he liked.
“It wasn't my way of doing things any more”.

“Today I wouldn't get an academic job. It's as simple as that. I don't think I would be regarded as productive enough.” said Peter Higgs
This was in 2013. What about today?

I think this story can give you a sense of how “enterprise-centered” and metrics-oriented the academic system has become.
Although this system has its own advantages (!), I still feel that we may have missed many interesting and important discoveries.

In essence, science requires perseverance and time. Not entrepreneurship.

Entrepreneurship should be a byproduct. Not the goal.
It’s strange to see the Nobel prize as a “life saver” for a scientist who has changed our understanding of how the Universe works.
Link to the article in Guardian:
_www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/06/peter-higgs-boson-academic-system

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Andrew Akbashev

Andrew Akbashev Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @Andrew_Akbashev

Feb 22
The more I read recommendation letters, the less I want to rely on them.

Many people will disagree with me. But I will still say that:

#AcademicChatter #phdlife #research Image
1. Recommendation letters promote elitism.
“You are not from a famous advisor’s group..? Sorry, you don’t belong here.”

2. When poorly written, a recommendation letter devaluates the candidate.
“This student has such a dull reference… It’s clearly not for us.”
3. Recommendation letters is a way to indirectly control and even intimidate students and postdocs.
“You don’t want to spend 15 hours a day on your research? But then how can I write a good recommendation letter for you?”
Read 11 tweets
Feb 21
Peer reviewing of manuscripts - is it THAT important as everyone thinks?

I thought of writing this post later, but Nature has catalyzed me to do it now.

Their article mentions the following important points:

#science #research #AcademicTwitter
1. The editor for Frontiers in Health Services sent out 150 (!) invitations to potential reviewers before he could receive 4 reviews. Only 1 was of sufficient quality. That is = 1/150!
2. The pool of reviewers is too small while the number of journals is exploding. This is because the editors often favor well-known scientists from countries with established science infrastructures.
Read 15 tweets
Jan 16
Scientists spend too much time taking “professional selfies”.

A paper from PNAS describes what it takes to be a scientist today. Key points (that I always emphasize myself):

#AcademicTwitter @AcademicChatter #research
1. Scientists have a new mode of activity: “being online”
- Constant distractions and external stimulation inhibit creativity and deep thinking
- “Thinking out of the box” has become rare because the Internet is itself a box.
2. Scientists communicate way too much:
- Easy travel, lots of meetings, tons of emails cause an epidemic of communication. As a result, everyone seems to work in the same direction (within a given field): mass migration to deep learning in AI, to BiFeO3 in ferroelectrics, etc
Read 11 tweets
Jan 6
“Oh, really?” - a typical sarcastic reaction on social media.

However I urge to look at the original study and data more carefully. 👇

#phdchat #AcademicTwitter #research
- A disruptive paper is defined here by the likelihood that this paper (and not the references inside it) will be cited by subsequent studies.

- In contrast, a consolidating paper is the one that is less likely to be cited than its predecessors. It consolidates the discovery.
Importantly, when only articles published in Nature, PNAS and Science or to Nobel-winning discoveries are considered, the downward trend STILL persists.

What explanation do authors suggest for the drop of disruptiveness?
Read 10 tweets
Jan 3
Yes, as a PI, you can publish more papers by pushing your students/postdocs really hard. But NO, those extra papers will not make your life better.

#science #research #AcademicTwitter
They will just make everyone unhappier:
- Your team members will feel burned out and depressed
- Journal editors will feel like there’s another manuscript that no one is willing to review
- The poor reviewers will feel like they have to review a manuscript they don’t care about
- More researchers will feel like they don’t want to get updated about so many papers from your group, especially when their quality gets worse
Read 7 tweets
Jul 4, 2022
Advice for #PhD students who want to become postdocs and stay in #academia:
- How to choose a lab for a postdoc
- How to prepare for an interview
- What to be careful about

Thread: 🧵

[I was a happy postdoc at Stanford]

#AcademicTwitter #engineering #science
Initial steps:

1. Decide on how far you want to move away from your PhD topic. Keep in mind:
- If your #postdoc research is distant, you will need more time to gain expertise and do competitive work
- Diverse and strong(!) expertise can make you stand out during faculty interviews and help you establish unique research directions
- BUT: gaining a bit of expertise here and there will hardly give you any advantage in the end
Read 16 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(