I just received my PhD in the biological sciences and now moving onto a postdoc, have published > 10 papers

But I’m totally disillusioned and dissatisfied. All I see around me are my colleagues including people at professor level, completely misusing and bastardising the scientific method for their own personal gain. I’m completely baffled by the extents to which these so called scholars will lie, obfuscate, misreport or underreport their findings, and worse coach various underlings to be the same

I’m probably fijking autistic, but I don’t understand how this can be the case. The very things these people accuse their rivals of, they are guilty of, and I’ve observed it over a number of years

Further, I now understand that in the relentless pursuit of funding, the way to go is literally just propaganda, slick marketing and essentially an outright rejection of the scientific method. This could not be called the pursuit of knowledge, in any way, and the ends do not justify the means. The old school is dead.

/sci/, is this what I get for trying to apply hard science principles to what is essentially a soft science? Or am I just a pessimistic fucking prick

What about you start minding your own fucking business and do something of value for mankind?

>>16723690 (OP)
biology is not soft science, it's the same in other sciences,

>>16723711
I see, thanks

>>16723707
Yes this reminds me of what many colleagues have said

“Instead of focusing on problems, focus on solutions!”

I am more interested in problems, and you should be too. If the solutions aren’t properly thought out, or are constructed for personal gain even knowing full well that these “solutions” will fail, I don’t think it’s useful for mankind. It’s outright grifting.

>>16723690 (OP)
Science should never have become something you do for a living. When results determine whether one eats or not, people will understandably fake them. Science should always have been a leisure pursuit for the rich, done out of pure curiosity.

>>16723690 (OP)
https://youtu.be/UzyqdaFb2Fk

"Do your best."

>>16723690 (OP)
can you give some specific examples of what your colleagues did?
it's important because we need to know if you're for real or just baiting or Eric Weinstein.

>>16723690 (OP)
me too anon
>be me
>phd student in chem
>pi is the type to masturbate to epistemology and doing good science, which is better than the alternative
>his neuroses and standards necessarily transfer into my own work
>i only rarely present, only publish a handful of times despite seeing colleagues in other labs racking up low-tier, fractional pubs
>they end up getting postdocs at prestigious places where i can only assume they keep up this sort of work
it just makes me want to go into industry where i can at least feel less bad about cutting corners by getting paid

>>16723690 (OP)
Congrats

>>16723690 (OP)
Older PhD here (wildlife population analysis).

>But I’m totally disillusioned and dissatisfied.
That's post-thesis burnout, it's absolutely normal, everyone had one, you just need a vacation.

> completely misusing and bastardising the scientific method for their own personal gain
It is what it is, but you're probably overestimating the grift a bit. It's there, but it's not everyone all times.

>The very things these people accuse their rivals of
If you can't understand that then you are indeed autistic. People know that their data is weak, their articles are meh and their grant applications are sales pitches. They are ashamed of that. When people are disturbed by something they did, they tend to get extra outraged by seeing someone else doing the same.

>Further, I now understand that in the relentless pursuit of funding
That is not true. In the relentless pursuit of funding, the way to go is propaganda and slick marketing plus scientific method. Scientific method is necessary, but it is not sufficient because we have to deal with retarded bugmen so that they give us the dough. But time filters all frauds.

1/2

>>16723690 (OP)
2/2

>The old school is dead.
Thank fucking god you have no idea what utter fuckery the Old School was up to. Every dirty trick you see around, all ass-kissing and salesemanship that infuriates you today - the old school was doing it tenfold. They just kept it out of their masturbatory memoirs, but old guys who knew old guys who knew how it was remember everything.

> is this what I get for trying to apply hard science principles to what is essentially a soft science?
Scientific rigor, proper experiment design and good statistical work are as necessary in biology as they are in high-energy physics, you just need to keep in mind that our opportunities for applying this rigor are substantially more ass. In many cases and for many methods, demanding the perfect CIs, sample sizes and reproducibility is straight up unfeasible and absurd, so "eh, according to my analysis this thing is PROBABLY more likely than that thing, most likely, perhaps, I think" is often a reasonable compromise.

Overall, I believe I should remind you that academia is a long game. Frauds come and go, bullshit hype fields coalesce and die every day, but good ree-zorch just perseveres where bullshit gets washed away into obscurity by the tide of decades, because once it has served the purpose of securing funding, it's useless and can hardly be used by anyone else to secure their funding.

Also, obligatory reminder that a PhD does not make you an adult. Previously you were an abortable fetus. Now you are an infant who doesn't know jack shit and won't know jack shit for another 10 to 15 years at least, because let's be real, it's true.

>>16723690 (OP)
I figured this out in my CS BSc. Finished my BSc and went into industry and never looked back. Happier than ever and I have a good conscience that what I'm doing is productive. I also made more money with a BSc and no prior experience than any PhD I know.

I truly feel sorry for you PhDs. You are autistic and hate change, so you just continue the path of least resistance and keep progressing in the school system you've been doing since you were a kid. The BSc -> MSc -> PhD research monkey pipeline is real.

>>16725183
nice bro how do i subscribe?

>>16724324
>>16724326
NTA, but v good post,
I applaud you for taking the time to write all this out, and will try to commit it to memory.
t. undergrad

>>16723757
Right on the mark.

>>16724324
>>16724326
>t. fraud

>>16723690 (OP)
90% of academics are office/lab rats who couldn’t give a shit about the scientific method and the Truth. Only autists aka self-aware people do.