>The scientific community is a competitive, high-pressure, frequently
>fast-paced arena. So it the financial community. I expect *any*
>discipline where the stakes are high is as well. This is the
>beauty of the system...those that are naturally competitive have
>an advantage, those that are passionate and resolved, hang in. Those
>that can't compete probably don't belong...they'll be miserable and
>unfulfilled, ultimately they'll leave. If a few ideas are lost in
>the process, well, that's the price paid...eventually someone else
>will hit on the same idea, particularly in a competitive field.
>>While I'm sympathetic to those who find this process onerous, it
>still does nothing to convince me that the bar of competition/
>confrontation should be lowered. Pursuing a career in science
>is *hard*...it always has been, it *should* be. There will always
>be those whose reality is ill-suited to their dreams...those
>whose dreams were formed at the behest of parents...those who
>simply do *not* belong in the scientific arena, it is the instructor's
>job to allow those people to realise this. And I concede, it's
>an absolute bitch of a realisation, but a necessary one.
>>The ones who ultimately succeed are those who can set aside
>their personal feelings of self-esteem, etc. in order to pursue
>scientific fact. Those who know that while validation from
>without is nice, determination from within is what really counts.
>Scientific progress is built on the backs of the stayers...and
>it's a very simple truth that not everyone who wants to be one,
>can be.
>
This is a classic "Social Darwinism" arguement. A similar arguement, that we shouldn't
regulate the marketplace-if people are destroyed, tough luck-the end product justifies the
means-went out with the Robber Barons in the early 1900s. (Devil's advocate) Hey, why
should we even fund science? If it's really a good idea, SOMEBODY will pay for it, and if
it's not, tough luck-it doesn't belong.
I'm not so sure I can sleep at night knowing that the people who's lives were made miserable
so that science could advance another small increment is "an absolute bitch of a
realization, but a necessary one." The ideal is held up of one who can "set aside her
personal feelings of self-esteem in order to pursue scientific fact." But I've been reading
"Creative Couples in the Sciences" (sorry,I forgot the authors) about husband wife teams
>From the Curies (both sets) on through recent times, and have come to realize that success
in science and self-esteem from within DO NOT go hand in hand-plenty of people who needed
outside validation have won Nobel prizes. I have been struck by how much these couples were
people (especially the Cories) with outside interests (Imagine that in this day and age!)
and families.
I am a stayer, but I cannot turn my back on those who the system runs over and say "Oh well,
nothing can be done". I firmly believe that if I'm not part of the solution,I'm part of the
problem!
And once again, I'm surprised by how strongly I feel about this!
*****************************************************
Julia Frugoli
Texas A&M University
Department of Plant Pathology & Microbiology
Crop Biotechnology Center
MS# 2123
College Station, TX 77843
409-842-2595
FAX 409-862-4790
*****************************************************
