×

Loading...

Good question, it is NDA, IP, and limited research scope that concerns the scientists.

Corps would ask scientists to sign confidentiality and NDA (non-disclosure agreement). They won’t allow scientists to disclose their secret sauce of trade, meaning they cannot publicly share or announce their scientific discoveries, which are regarded as conflict of interest. For many scientists, this is unethical in a way that the connection and collaboration between community members often result in more findings.

These IP restrictions severely limit how scientists can use the work. More often than not corps will claim the full ownership of the findings, papers, source code if any, lab books produced by the scientists during their employment. When they leave the shop, they leave everything behind.

Corps are typically focused on a very specific research areas. This isn’t necessarily aligned with what the scientists want to pursue in a long term and how they prioritize their own research goals.

Sign in and Reply Report

Replies, comments and Discussions:

  • 工作学习 / 事业工作 / 当一个人思想脱贫,starts forming a grand vision, starts thinking purpose and social contribution, 他就能理解“为科研守清贫”。 +17

    Do we know how many research groups, government agencies are still studying SARS and AIDS? In Asia, Europe, America, there are many many labs working out of the spotlight to tackle the unanswered challenges. These scientists at some top-notch institutes and think tanks, most are under paid, focus on finding the cure for infection, understanding viral reservoirs, and improving treatment strategies. The knowledge gained from these research has been instrumental for both modern medicine and public health decision making.

    These people have good chance to make great money but they choose not to. During my stint at J&J, most if not all big name molecular biologists refused the offer that could bring them very serious money. They would agree to collaborate with J&J but still work in their own labs taking typical professors’ salary.

    My company also tried to hire a few neuroscientists in Canada when we productized a new biosensor based surgery procedure to remove brain tumor, we met the same story. The money we offered easily allows them to comfortably retire in just a few years but they said no, though agreed to collaborate and made immense contribution.

    One friend in my network told me the similar story. Hers shop has an European operation, where she found challenging to convince scientists to take full time position. There was one exception, a scientist said he would join unless my friend launches a not-for-profit entity. She agreed and that scientist only took 95K Euro… an incredible low salary.

    It’s not my intention to prove researchers do not wish to pocket good money. I am trying to say the opposite - There are many of them do not prioritize money over research and their passion.

    Why so?

    Many scientists we worked with have the grand vision of doing greater good to this world.

    They value the impact of social responsibility much more than simply exchanging their expertise for money. They are determined to devote their limited life to the most significant groundbreaking science discoveries that benefit us, the human kind.

    They believe the excellence of research must be produced from a place where academic freedom and independence are respected -- this isn't always the case in commercial shops; Therefore "赚钱和搞科研" isn't always finding harmony.

    Every time I am thinking about them, I could not help admiring and paying wholehearted respect. Yes, many of them are not making 400K but needless to say they are the pillars of the society. They made the choice of “为了科研而甘守清贫“ at the same time advancing the world for betterment.

    We can comprehend the first-generation of immigrants need to give in for survival. This however isn’t the case for next generation. After all, this world offers many things much bigger than “getting in CS and making 400K“.

    • 赞一个👍 +7
    • 也包含 covid Gain-of-function research? 这个是可以一举成名的,而且手中掌握摧毁世界N多次的大杀器,傲视世界的感觉一定很好,估计福齐医生是这么想的 +2
      Talk of “gain-of-function” research, a muddy category at best, brings up deep questions about how scientists should study viruses and other pathogens.
    • Academic research 最吸引人的地方就是自由, +4
      思想的自由,研究方向的自由,研究手段的自由。只要我有自己的funding,谁也管不了我想干什么。一旦进入corporate,自由就不存在了。如果你是个free spirited的人,corporate的环境大概是会让人窒息的。所以千金难买自由。当然学术圈的研究也不是没毛病,而以盈利为终极目标的研究也可以出很好的成果。
      • 就是因为自由才造成了学术的腐败混乱,实验造假文章造假骗经费,让很多原本有理想有抱负的天真无邪的孩子掉进了泥坑 +2

        工业界的研发都是经过周密的论证才立项,最终的科研成果也都要经得起市场考验
        • 这不是我说的自由。思想自由是根本,但这不等于没有监管。academia最好的监管方式是peer review。一直以来peer review的过程是robust的,但是需要改进。
          • peer review 都是唬人的,同一个系的教授都不一定能看懂隔壁实验室的文章 +2
            • peer 看不懂,别人更看不懂,那靠什么监管呢
              • 监管个鬼,见过名科学家的文章里图片和下面的注解驴唇不对马嘴的, 发表了十几年也没人去纠正 +2
        • 再怎么样都不能否认有人甘于清贫,责任或说兴趣高于金钱的,不是什么都得和钱挂勾,我们做不到,有人做到了 +1
    • hats off to these people who made the choice of “为了科研而甘守清贫“ at the same time advancing the world for betterment. And well said, very inspiring 👍 +2
    • 顶好文!具有顶尖思维头脑和掌握先进科技的人,对物欲的诱惑保持清醒的头脑和良心底线非常重要!这一类人只有保持探索世界的纯意和造福人类的善心,才不会为了贪私欲而利用绝活和聪明的大脑来作恶,因为利令智昏,有时只有作恶才能快速暴富! +5
    • 任何人在任何行业不以赚钱为第一目的反而会得到很多,包括金钱。很遗憾的是很多人有能力的人是追着金钱跑的,比如金融行业,计算机,医生等等 +2
      If You Hate Ricky Gervais Watch This Video — It Will Change Your Mind
      Ricky Gervais is an English comedian, actor, director, and writer. Known for not being afraid of offending people with his jokes, as seen in his viral Golden...
    • 感谢楼主这样的文章清清眼睛。龙坛那边对应的帖子,那股铜臭和污糟糟的思想让人作呕。 +5
      • 适当的逐利 也无可厚非。校园里的学术研究基础研究 也不是人人都适合的,其中的艰辛也只有过来人才知道,也不是想象中的那么浪漫。这些孩子们也需要知道,不要走上这条路 才发现自己并不合适。最终的选择让孩子自己做 +2
        • 确实是只有过来人才明白搞科研是怎么回事,那就是某些人保住饭碗的手段,为了发文章凑数才做的研究,其中有多少水份只有当事人心里明白。 +2
          • 那到也不是这么说的, +2
            学校里的学术研究 有好有坏,有充数的,有fraud,但是最好的成果(往往也是一时半会看不到任何应用的价值)最好的思想 往往都是从学校里出来的。我的意思不是厚此薄比。而是想提醒孩子们不要把清贫当作浪漫,要走这条路 就要有思想准备,提醒他们也是我们过来人的责任
            • 你也得提醒他们有很多滥竽充数的研究,不要一叶障目,要有选择的能力,不要被生活推着被动地往前走 +1
    • “你们投资头脑改变地球和我利用地球入门即赚钱,不冲突。”
    • 当一个人物质“脱贫”,才能为自己的理想和喜好守清贫 +1
    • 追求理想和接受现实的区别,更重要的是在形成思考能力过程中,被灌输的是什么。最不能忽略的是,很多都是打着为下一代好的说法做的,你的不同思考选择,在她们看来意味着对下一代不好,打死她们都不干的
    • 我们毕竟还是visible minority,纯以赚钱为目的还是少数,看看自己的孩子就知道了。收入的多少,可以看作是社会对你劳动付出的一种肯定,社会没人攀比这个。 +1
    • Great👍 ,尤其是大部国人知识分子精英的理想从横渠四句“为天地立心,为生民立命,为往圣继绝学,为万世开太平”转到一切向钱看的时代,悲哀。。。所幸还有少数坚持者。。。谢谢 +4
      • 没钱什么都做不了。
    • 为科研守清贫令人敬佩,但是有的人科研一辈子也没做出什么贡献。加入你们公司开发那个切除肿瘤的新仪器,做成以后对人类的贡献是立竿见影的,之后还可以回去继续科研,为啥要拒绝加入呢?
      • “They believe the excellence of research must be produced from a place where academic freedom and independence are respected -- this isn't always the case in commercial shops; Therefore "赚钱和搞科研" isn't always finding harmony.”
        • Exception exists everywhere in this world, but rare exceptions should not be an excuse for the harmony seen in the majority of business cases
      • Good question, it is NDA, IP, and limited research scope that concerns the scientists. +2

        Corps would ask scientists to sign confidentiality and NDA (non-disclosure agreement). They won’t allow scientists to disclose their secret sauce of trade, meaning they cannot publicly share or announce their scientific discoveries, which are regarded as conflict of interest. For many scientists, this is unethical in a way that the connection and collaboration between community members often result in more findings.

        These IP restrictions severely limit how scientists can use the work. More often than not corps will claim the full ownership of the findings, papers, source code if any, lab books produced by the scientists during their employment. When they leave the shop, they leave everything behind.

        Corps are typically focused on a very specific research areas. This isn’t necessarily aligned with what the scientists want to pursue in a long term and how they prioritize their own research goals.

        • 有道理,在谷歌脸书工作的AI科学家是允许发表论文的,所以吸引了不少顶尖AI科学家,两家各吸引了一个AI图灵奖得主。而苹果什麽都要保密,是不允许发论文的,所以没有顶尖AI科学家愿意去苹果工作的。
    • 比前面那个说有了进步。
    • 加个一,如果我们的后代能有这个意识,做学问不来钱,做官不来钱,搞技术不来钱,真想来钱就做生意,那这个世界会非常美好👍 +1
    • The framework is not accurate +4
      本文发表在 rolia.net 枫下论坛"为科研守清贫" , I do not even know where to start to discuss about this "slogan", but I know this is not the right approach of thinking and even against the law of Maslow's hierarchy of needs. We could say "热爱可抵岁月漫长“,just like what 张益唐 has experienced. 清贫or富裕should not even be linked with 科研 IMHO. But I'd say 富裕 is and should be a by-product of successful 科研成果。When Elon Musk started Telsa or other ventures, he did not consider about profit or being rich out of these ventures, he simply has a big ambition to make the world better. So this "为科研守清贫" seems only popular in China by those in 领导岗位 who find excuses for the sad symptoms of "搞导弹的不如卖茶叶蛋的”
      Other points against this slogan If "为科研守清贫" is praised and promoted without a clear bottom line, there can be other similar slogans coming out, such as "为科研舍小家“,”为科研守单身“,”为科研忍孤独“,”为科研舍尽孝“ so on and so forth... My point is not "为科研守清贫" is totally wrong (for some individuals), but it is definitely not a worthwhile point to be proud of, and it is not "sustainable" in long term. From a country level perspective, if government policy is based on the foundation of such "merits", the country will be doomed in science and technology.更多精彩文章及讨论,请光临枫下论坛 rolia.net
      • 喜欢看这样的讨论,给你加个一👍 富裕 is and should be a by-product of successful 科研成果, 这确实是最理想的状态。不过看了楼主这个回帖我想我理解了理想的丰满,现实的骨感: +2
      • Can't agree more.
    • 在这里一并回上面几位朋友的comments,感谢各位的理性灌水。 +7

      前面的一个匿名朋友说的很好 “适当的逐利 也无可厚非。校园里的学术研究基础研究 也不是人人都适合的,其中的艰辛也只有过来人才知道,也不是想象中的那么浪漫”

      投身科研就要做好 “我本将心向明月,奈何明月照沟渠” 的准备,基础研究尤其如此。说到浪漫,我几个在NASA的同学已经让北美的明月照了20多年沟渠了,用他们的话说“科研人的浪漫,全宇宙都看得见”。和其他行业无异,取得大成就很少见,但是守得住寂寞清冷,心有所往并为之付诸一生的科研人的朴素情怀并不少见。

      前面还有匿名的朋友说到关于学术腐败作假。学术界的作假或者名誉黑幕确实很多,从时间上往远的说有美国NIH,NCI在80年代迫于政治正确和投资blood bank的巨头的要挟从而隐瞒艾滋病的流行,然后到不道德的剽窃法国人的研究成果;近的有《bad blood》这本纪实里写到的Elizabeth Holmes和她的骗局以及给她站台的政客,再近的就是COVID期间美国CDC的腐败,在《premolition》这本纪实里也有提到。

      这和企业界腐败作假一个类型,比如Enron的财务作假, Wells Fargo Fraud Scandal, Theranos Fraud (女主刚被判了),大众emmissions Scandal,还有美国最大的猪肉生产商Smithfield (被中国的双汇接盘了)买通政府以及学术专家,恶意排放hog waste的案子,在《wastelands》里被详细披露,等等等等。。。 要因这些而抵制或者恐惧“天真无邪的孩子会掉入泥坑”,咱也不要工作了。都说人间黑暗,也不能说咱人都不能做了是吧?

      人不能改变世界,只能改变自己,重要的是自己和孩子们在其中怎么才能维持自己的道德底线,这个道理不用多说,这里都是聪明人。

      最后回一下yh_abc,我写下这篇主贴,是看了坛子里另外一篇的标题里提到 “。。没有什么为了科研而甘守清贫这样的事。。。” 所以聊一些自己的经历和感受,不针对也不布道,原帖我就不贴了,感兴趣自己去找吧。“为了科研甘受清贫” 不是我的原话,也不代表我的立场,我文中和标题里都用了引号以示引用。

      我通篇的主题是说,这世上还是有一些有趣的灵魂,拿着一份普通薪水,可以单纯的为了科研而拒绝高薪的。引用一位合作伙伴常说的话 "Every scientist should have a dream larger than life."

      所以你很可能是误读了。至于你提及的中国领导用的借口等等,就更和我的主题无关了。我举双手同意国家应该提高科研人员待遇,特别是做基础研究的。我也举双手同意“做科研的就该穷”的想法是可耻的。

      • 再赞一次👍肯定涨粉了 +3
      • 👏👏👏 +1
      • 赞一个👍
      • Thanks for your clarification!

        I always believe the best job is "you are paid to do what you love" and I also believe there is a pay threshold, beyond which those hard-core scientists / researchers cannot care less.

        However, my key point is there is such a threshold (not necessarily fixed, but exists for people as social beings), which if not reached, it is a "tragedy" to both the scientists and the society, because below this threshold, the scientists (and their families) can hardly live a decent life and thus can hardly make the full dedication to their beloved research work. So from public policy perspective, the public fund should support those dedicated scientists, allowing them to have a decent and above-average life standard for the betterment of the society as a whole.

        My bad to mis-undertand you as I initially thought you are promoting the slogan of "为科研守清贫". Thanks again for your clarification and am very impressed with the facts you mentioned in your post.

    • 一个科研工作者如果到45岁还没认识到上帝,必定认识到了魔鬼。如果能为了信仰工作,就是富有而自由的,无关清贫与否。
    • 俺作为一个码农,据HR说,薪水的一部分来自政府R&D,所以俺也好歹算是科研的一份子,俺也“清贫”,可是俺还是想多挣俩子儿,虽然还到不了“为科研守清贫”的境界,但是已经达到了“科研且清贫”的境界😄
      • 😂😂😂
      • 已经不错了
        • 老大,您这是赞扬,鼓励,同情还是嘲讽啊?俺脚的都有一点点,俺就当是同情加赞扬。
          • 赞扬,鼓励,因为我们差不多
            • 好啊!同道中人!
      • 这个我有一定的发言权。
        好多年以前我在一家不太大的公司当软件开发的Director, 工作的一部分责任就是把大家编的程序看来看去,看看里面有没有什么闪光点,抠出来写成报告,去申请政府给中小型科技企业的R&D资助。弄得好一点的年头,能把full time的工资的一半向政府讨回来。。。