The most fun thing to say for a successful researcher is stuff like:
(1) "I wouldn't have been able to do my awesome work in today's research climate"
(2) "Nobody believed me, but then I showed them all..."
(3) "I was a destitute street magician until I discovered probability theory and then won a MacArther"
(4) "My first 10^5 experiments were failures, but I persisted."
(5) "I almost failed high school trig"
(a) ...because it was too boring for me.
(b) ...because i was a misguided pothead back then.
Take these stories as "the set that gets published" because a wide audience feels better about themselves after reading them.
On the other hand, the same public votes for lawmakers who are intent on cutting research funding because they think it is useless (e.g., they randomly pick some funny-sounding grant from NSF, read it on TV in some sarcastic voice, and then declare that all research is bunk).
I see the NSF become less exploratory because of the pressure to "have practical impact," and I believe that is driven by one particular political party in the US.
When so many people present well-conceived ideas that will at least have some payoff (at least in terms of publications), it is hard to justify supporting wonky ideas by people who don't show evidence of mastery in the new area.
How many of you have a total-crank uncle who thinks he has a better idea for solar cells, electric cars, or XYZ?
Well, the same holds if you substitute "uncle" for "professor at a tier-one research university."
(1) "I wouldn't have been able to do my awesome work in today's research climate"
(2) "Nobody believed me, but then I showed them all..."
(3) "I was a destitute street magician until I discovered probability theory and then won a MacArther"
(4) "My first 10^5 experiments were failures, but I persisted."
(5) "I almost failed high school trig" (a) ...because it was too boring for me. (b) ...because i was a misguided pothead back then.
Take these stories as "the set that gets published" because a wide audience feels better about themselves after reading them.
On the other hand, the same public votes for lawmakers who are intent on cutting research funding because they think it is useless (e.g., they randomly pick some funny-sounding grant from NSF, read it on TV in some sarcastic voice, and then declare that all research is bunk).
I see the NSF become less exploratory because of the pressure to "have practical impact," and I believe that is driven by one particular political party in the US.
When so many people present well-conceived ideas that will at least have some payoff (at least in terms of publications), it is hard to justify supporting wonky ideas by people who don't show evidence of mastery in the new area.
How many of you have a total-crank uncle who thinks he has a better idea for solar cells, electric cars, or XYZ?
Well, the same holds if you substitute "uncle" for "professor at a tier-one research university."