(upbeat music)
(ice clinking)
(blender whirring)
- Hello, my beautiful LinkedIn friends!
So today I want to talk about something
a little bit different,
a little bit outside
of what I normally do.
I try to keep this vlog
and the content I make
positive, helpful,
but I've come to a realization
that needs to be spoken about.
So as part of my
verbalize.science journey,
I've been thinking about the
act of communicating science,
why scientists don't do it more often,
and I've come to this realization,
that academia is fundamentally flawed.
I've realized that academia suffers
from terrible short term-ism.
So scientists are not rewarded
for actually doing science!
They are rewarded for
bringing in grant money,
publishing peer-reviewed papers.
That is pretty much the only two things
that scientists can use to
ensure career progression,
to get accolades, to
further their own research,
and that flies completely in the face,
I think, of what science is all about.
Science is about gathering
information, making lives better,
and I really think that
the university system
and the systems in which scientists work
are fundamentally corrupted.
At verbalize.science,
we want to help scientists
communicate, but the fact is,
they are not rewarded for communicating,
because the system creates short term-ism,
where scientists are not
rewarded for the things
that they actually want
to do, which is science,
and communicate that science more broadly.
But there needs to be a fundamental change
in the way universities and
other research organizations
reward their scientists,
and at verbalize.science,
I want to be part of that change.
I want to make sure that
scientists communicate
because they're not about
hoarding information
or being the first or not collaborating
because of the competition.
It's kind of like an
unspoken thing about science.
We know it happens, people in
science know it's happening,
but unfortunately, the system
encourages short term-ism.
Communication is a huge part
of the scientific process,
but it is completely undervalued,
and therefore, the system creates a state
where the science is not implemented.
People work in silos,
they're super competitive.
Communication will help
the entire scientific process,
but it is not rewarded in the same way
that bringing in grant money is.
And I think and until a fundamental
systematic change of academia happens,
we are going to be seeing an increase
and a continuation of
the distrust of science,
of politicians completely
ignoring science.
This short-term focus, this finite game
that academia has become,
I think has to change.
All right, I'm going to sit
here, eat the rest of my,
do you eat or drink a smoothie?
If you work for, or you are the head
of an institution that wants to make
an absolute impact and a change in the way
science is fundamentally
done in your institution,
let me know, 'cause I
want to work with you!
