Currently, at least in the US academia, scientists are fiercely competing with one another at the individual level. In order to set up a lab, they need space at a university, which requires competing with each other for tenure track faculty positions. These are usually granted according to some fetishized metric of productivity, such as h-index, and their demonstrated ability to secure grant funding. They also need to compete with each other to secure that funding, which is often determined by the prestige of the scientist (i.e. h-index) and by the alignment of the grant proposal with the funding agencies goals. This places a great deal of competition between scientists and it tends to be alienating. Science is a social process that involves the communal development of the general intellect--it's not driven by individual geniuses slaving away under isolated, alienated conditions.
Another area of competition is that over graduate students and post-docs who do much of the crucial work needed to run the lab. Scientists are constantly competing with each other over the best students and post-docs. However, universities have been making this easier by accepting too many grad students than what can be funded, which makes things easier for the scientist, but forces intense competition onto the grad students. Likewise, there is a systemic over-production of post-docs, which makes it easier for scientists to hire quality post-docs at cheap rates, but it likewise forces post-docs into intense competition as well. This penny-pinching over grants and the competition over students changes the scientist-student relationship from its historic master-apprentice form to the employer-employee form, which means that the scientist becomes less invested in the development of the student. Obviously this is bad because, scientists must not only produce scientific knowledge, but they also need to train the next generation.
And then there are the funding agencies--the NSF, NIH, Department of Defense, and in some cases the private sector. They parcel out grants according to their budgets received from Congress. The money goes towards scientists and projects that are aligned with their goals, which under an Imperial capitalist nation-state, are aligned with national defense and private accumulation of monopoly capital. And then there are the universities themselves which are increasingly run as businesses. And then there are the scientific journals, professional societies, conferences, etc. All these things have been corrupted in some form by capitalism and will change under socialism. And that's not even getting into systemic issues of race/gender/class.
So, under socialism, I think science would be organized in a way that limits the alienation of scientists, students, technicians, etc. The goal of research institutions would be to foster a research community rather than attracting a handful of superstars who are constantly wary of one another and trying to elbow each other out of the way, and who are forced to exploit the students/post-docs/technicians who work in their labs. Likewise, access to resources shouldn't be granted on an individual basis according to some fetishized productivity metric. For example, the Soviet bureaucracy parceled out scientific resources at the institutional level rather than the individual level. Furthermore, the scientific institutions should value scientists on their mentorship/teaching ability in addition to their research productivity, rather than valuing them solely on their ability to attract grant funding. Finally, the focus of scientific research can be turned away from imperial domination and monopoly profits towards socially beneficial programs like green energy, green infrastructure, space exploration, the automation of work, etc.
Currently, at least in the US academia, scientists are fiercely competing with one another at the individual level. In order to set up a lab, they need space at a university, which requires competing with each other for tenure track faculty positions. These are usually granted according to some fetishized metric of productivity, such as h-index, and their demonstrated ability to secure grant funding. They also need to compete with each other to secure that funding, which is often determined by the prestige of the scientist (i.e. h-index) and by the alignment of the grant proposal with the funding agencies goals. This places a great deal of competition between scientists and it tends to be alienating. Science is a social process that involves the communal development of the general intellect--it's not driven by individual geniuses slaving away under isolated, alienated conditions.
Another area of competition is that over graduate students and post-docs who do much of the crucial work needed to run the lab. Scientists are constantly competing with each other over the best students and post-docs. However, universities have been making this easier by accepting too many grad students than what can be funded, which makes things easier for the scientist, but forces intense competition onto the grad students. Likewise, there is a systemic over-production of post-docs, which makes it easier for scientists to hire quality post-docs at cheap rates, but it likewise forces post-docs into intense competition as well. This penny-pinching over grants and the competition over students changes the scientist-student relationship from its historic master-apprentice form to the employer-employee form, which means that the scientist becomes less invested in the development of the student. Obviously this is bad because, scientists must not only produce scientific knowledge, but they also need to train the next generation.
And then there are the funding agencies--the NSF, NIH, Department of Defense, and in some cases the private sector. They parcel out grants according to their budgets received from Congress. The money goes towards scientists and projects that are aligned with their goals, which under an Imperial capitalist nation-state, are aligned with national defense and private accumulation of monopoly capital. And then there are the universities themselves which are increasingly run as businesses. And then there are the scientific journals, professional societies, conferences, etc. All these things have been corrupted in some form by capitalism and will change under socialism. And that's not even getting into systemic issues of race/gender/class.
So, under socialism, I think science would be organized in a way that limits the alienation of scientists, students, technicians, etc. The goal of research institutions would be to foster a research community rather than attracting a handful of superstars who are constantly wary of one another and trying to elbow each other out of the way, and who are forced to exploit the students/post-docs/technicians who work in their labs. Likewise, access to resources shouldn't be granted on an individual basis according to some fetishized productivity metric. For example, the Soviet bureaucracy parceled out scientific resources at the institutional level rather than the individual level. Furthermore, the scientific institutions should value scientists on their mentorship/teaching ability in addition to their research productivity, rather than valuing them solely on their ability to attract grant funding. Finally, the focus of scientific research can be turned away from imperial domination and monopoly profits towards socially beneficial programs like green energy, green infrastructure, space exploration, the automation of work, etc.
fuck yeah to all of that