Thanks for this writeup, and for making the case for curiosity-driven research. Nice to be reminded of the coolness of discovery, on a morning that (personally) feels a bit overwhelmed with administrative tasks.
As somebody who works on animal regeneration, I have no problem justifying what I do to the public because it appears immediately relevant in how the research will potentially help humans. But the reality is I am simply curious about this amazing phenomenon, and if my research helps humans that would be cherry on top.
Teaching regeneration biology for the first time to our undergrads this semester, I was faced with a lot of "but how do you translate this to human health" questions at the beginning of the semester. This is in part because I am taking an evolutionary angle and covering a bunch of cool and weird organisms that regenerate.
Initially I was slightly dismayed by the human health question that kept popping up, but I decided to trust in the intellect of my amazing students and explained patiently my view, that academic endeavour isn't just about humans. Sometimes we study things for the sake of understanding the fascinating nature around us, and that's enough reason. I am happy to report that I know at least a few of my students got it! If I have time before the semester ends, I want to dedicate some class time to discuss this further.
First, your premise of academic freedom only being for old white cancer researchers 💀💀👏🏻👏🏻
Coming from my work in supporting health research, the emphasis on the translational quality may be too much. Yes, there’s the “Valley of Knowledge Death” Canadian health researchers like to refer to - where one often quotes Morris, Wooding, & Grant (2011) and similar by noting it takes 17 years to get a piece of work conceptualized, produced and published. But I think there’s a difference between improving knowledge translation and uptake of applied work, and focusing only on applied work at the expense of discovery science. We need the discovery science to inform applied work. The solution, to me, is to improve the KT of the discovery science; like you and others have said on here, the public generally wants to know, but we have to do the translation work of bringing it to them.
Thanks for this writeup, and for making the case for curiosity-driven research. Nice to be reminded of the coolness of discovery, on a morning that (personally) feels a bit overwhelmed with administrative tasks.
I’m glad it was a reminder! Seems a key part to staying happy and motivated is not getting bogged down in admin but I never mastered that skill!
Liz thank you for this great post, as always.
As somebody who works on animal regeneration, I have no problem justifying what I do to the public because it appears immediately relevant in how the research will potentially help humans. But the reality is I am simply curious about this amazing phenomenon, and if my research helps humans that would be cherry on top.
Teaching regeneration biology for the first time to our undergrads this semester, I was faced with a lot of "but how do you translate this to human health" questions at the beginning of the semester. This is in part because I am taking an evolutionary angle and covering a bunch of cool and weird organisms that regenerate.
Initially I was slightly dismayed by the human health question that kept popping up, but I decided to trust in the intellect of my amazing students and explained patiently my view, that academic endeavour isn't just about humans. Sometimes we study things for the sake of understanding the fascinating nature around us, and that's enough reason. I am happy to report that I know at least a few of my students got it! If I have time before the semester ends, I want to dedicate some class time to discuss this further.
Those students are so lucky to have you 😍
Great read!
First, your premise of academic freedom only being for old white cancer researchers 💀💀👏🏻👏🏻
Coming from my work in supporting health research, the emphasis on the translational quality may be too much. Yes, there’s the “Valley of Knowledge Death” Canadian health researchers like to refer to - where one often quotes Morris, Wooding, & Grant (2011) and similar by noting it takes 17 years to get a piece of work conceptualized, produced and published. But I think there’s a difference between improving knowledge translation and uptake of applied work, and focusing only on applied work at the expense of discovery science. We need the discovery science to inform applied work. The solution, to me, is to improve the KT of the discovery science; like you and others have said on here, the public generally wants to know, but we have to do the translation work of bringing it to them.
Yes to all of this!
I like to think that I'm doing science for the express purpose of everproper alignment of my reasoning with my experience (wishful thinking ;)
P.S. Saving the world is not my thing anymore, especially after I read Isaiah Berlin (or I'm not fit for such serious biz, I should rephrase).
This is a fear of mine, for sure. Thank you for your encouragement!