Independent basic research is the most effective tool economically and socially and should not be harmed
Personal thoughts of Yitzhak Farnes about the brain and science
Independent basic research is the most effective tool economically and socially and should not be harmed
Recently we have been hearing negative criticism of the university academic system and the principle of academic freedom. The criticism is compounded by two main processes: on the one hand, political statements by academics and on the other academics, mainly economists, who claim (to the delight of the Treasury) that various research subjects are devoid of meaning or benefit to society.
In discussing these issues, it is important to distinguish between freedom of speech and academic freedom. Freedom of speech is the natural right of every person to express his opinions as long as they do not violate the law. Just as politicians and journalists are allowed to speak out on various issues, so too are academics allowed to speak out and express opinions, sometimes irritating ones, without needing the excuse of academic freedom. As far as I'm concerned, their words don't carry too much weight on issues that are not in the professional academic field in which they deal. In short, so they said.
The criticism of academic freedom is much more severe and may harm scientific research in the short term and certainly in the long term. What is academic freedom? Academic freedom is the right given to any scientist in a basic research institution or a higher education institution, to research any subject in his field of specialization. This is a great right that society grants researchers and indeed most researchers do not abuse this right. History proves that this is the most effective way and in the cases where society, or religion, tried to interfere with this principle, the damage to science and society was immeasurable. Although the company indirectly controls scientific research as a whole by allocating budgetary resources, it does not interfere in the personal research topics of each researcher. The essence of academic freedom is that the scientist investigates topics that interest him and contribute to the expansion of human knowledge without, necessarily, bringing an immediate benefit to society. And yet, in economic terms and over generations it can be stated that this is the most profitable investment the company has made.
Scientific research can be divided into three main groups: basic research, infrastructural research and applied research. The basic research operates according to the principle of academic freedom. The infrastructural research allows the government to develop in an accelerated manner topics of preferential interest such as computer science or nanotechnology. The government allocates more resources to such topics, but the specific research topics are chosen based on scientific considerations. The useful (and security) research is mainly conducted in industry and government companies and deals with topics selected in advance according to social, economic or security considerations.
I had the honor of being the chairman of the National Council for Research and Development and serving three prime ministers (the late Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres and YBL Binyamin Netanyahu). I have no doubt that in all respects basic research, which for generations has followed the principle of academic freedom, is effective From an economic point of view and in terms of its contribution to society, I think this conclusion is true for the humanities, the natural sciences, and of course the exact sciences When the scientists in the world and in Israel started researching computers or computing methods, based on these initial works, magnificent industries arose that brought in more money than all the budgets invested in basic research for many years. Try to imagine a world without computers and the social and economic consequences Aeronautics did not produce an airplane tail in Israel, but the long-term consequences for the country's security are enormous Dozens if not hundreds of such examples, but, as mentioned, even without a financial contribution, the contribution to human knowledge is immeasurable.
Critics of the academic freedom system fail to propose another "more efficient or economical" system, and for good reason. Without academic freedom, who will decide what topics we will research? – The government? The officials of the Treasury, the National Tax Service or the Ministry of Science? Or perhaps scientific committees of senior scientists from the scientific establishment appointed by politicians? Are the industry people, who make short-term decisions, decisions according to which huge sums have been invested and in many cases without success, a more successful mechanism?
The academic system as a whole works well, is one of the most efficient in the country, and continues to improve and become more efficient constantly. Leave her alone and do not violate the principle of academic freedom.
Yitzhak Ferns is a professor in the Department of Neurobiology of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, the founder of the Israeli Association for Neuroscience and the founder of Belmonte Youth Labs in Jerusalem.
5 תגובות
Roy (3)
I'm not sure I understand your question. More suitable than who? One of those who graduated from a "regular" university/college? I think that's what you mean, if so, which one are you referring to exactly? To those of them who bother to do the assignments themselves or to those who complain about others who help them survive the degree while they are busy with other things that interest them more? It's not clear what comparison you want to make. In any case, it is clear that curiosity and the desire (and also the ability) to learn independently is a necessary (but not sufficient) quality to perform good research in science. It may be that the graduates of the Open University present this quality more convincingly during the degree (is that what you meant?) but the reality shows that this is probably not enough. From my personal acquaintances with several dozens of researchers and active scientists, the vast majority (if not all) displayed this quality, and several other equally important ones, already in their first years in the academy and I rely on this mainly.
I don't know what happens every day, but when I finished my engineering studies in 2002 in Tel Aviv, the guys who couldn't find a job went to get a 2nd degree.
Those who did not find a job after their 2nd degree went to do a doctorate.
And those of them who did not find lecturers in the engineering department at Uni today. cell.
Yes, the academic research really burned into their bones...
Camila, just a small question that came to my mind while reading your comment.
Do you think that a person who started and finished a degree at the Open University, and we know that most students do not finish the degree, is more suitable for conducting research?
I ask this because you wrote:
"Lea, those who do continue to do research are those who should not be spoon-fed, nor should they be threatened to read half a page in English, because that is really the minimum of the minimum of the minimum."
Reindeer (1)
Looks like you managed to miss the whole article. You are mixing two unrelated topics here (and one of them is not even discussed in the body of the article). Undergraduate academic studies and academic research are two completely different things. It is true that in the vast majority of cases those who become research students (master's and third degrees) and beyond have also gone through undergraduate studies, but this is a minority (as you also mentioned) to which the better people with the qualities more suitable for research usually belong. In undergraduate studies, there are many who do not want and / or are not qualified to carry out research at a high level, and you can get a good idea of the abilities already during the undergraduate degree from jobs and projects. Believe me, not many are suitable for high level research. Those who do continue to do research are those who should not be spoon fed nor should they be threatened to read the half page in English because it is really the minimum of the minimum of the minimum. Those few who already have the curiosity and the ability and the motivation to take control of a large amount of material and to invest beyond that are the ones who will continue and the others will not and that's a good thing. It is not clear to me on what basis you wrote a sentence like: "Those who, with a little help (in the form of a more respectable level of teaching) would have gone on the high road and become excellent researchers, are missed." I suggest you talk to researchers at leading institutions and ask them how they spent their years in their undergraduate degree, I guarantee you that they didn't sit around waiting to be spoon fed, and that if there was a bad lecturer then they went and read the course syllabus and learned the things themselves and that's even Not to mention the "unnecessary" courses they took and the other interests they developed on their own. If the only purpose of the bachelor's degree was a preparatory stage for advanced degrees then the requirements would have to be many times more stringent than what exists today, just as it is made difficult for people who want to reach elite units in the army for that matter. That's why the whole matter of supervision you mentioned is not at all relevant to academic freedom.
You wrote correctly (and as mentioned regardless of the article), bachelor's degree students are mostly customers who receive a service from the university that includes higher education. There is nothing between this and research work. It is possible to debate whether the teaching at the university is good or bad and why it is not better (and there are many reasons for this, some incidentally due to the demand, whether explicit or not, from the institution's mechanism to adapt the content and pace to the average students who make up the majority). I personally think that the level of teaching in the good institutions is quite high and the truth is that if you take into account the level of compensation received by the teaching staff, especially the junior staff, then I think the level of teaching is excellent. If anything bothers you, I think it should be the fact that the wheels that drive the research in the academic institutions in this country are still disgracefully rewarded and it seems that despite the talk the situation is only getting worse. Do you really think that under these conditions what needs to be done is to increase the flow of bachelor's degree holders who will continue research? It is simply a matter of budget allocation and national priorities, and when they prefer to budget for religion, for example, at the expense of science, then this has immediate consequences on the level of teaching as well, and this should really worry us.
to her and a thorn in her. Within the concept of "academic freedom" a number of negative aspects are indeed hidden. There is, to say the least, much room for improving the efficiency of the academic system in Israel. The key word is supervision. The system tends to underestimate bachelor's degree students, who make up a significant percentage of its clients, and allows few to continue on to advanced degrees. Without supervision, a situation arises where many undergraduate students study at a low level and do not reach their potential. This is how engineers enter the industry at a lower level than is possible, and those who with a little help (in the form of a more respectable teaching level) would have taken the high road and become excellent researchers (the interest in self-learning has been acquired. You don't need to make life difficult for students in order to get advanced degrees those who learned to manage on their own alone. You can also teach them to manage on their own).
And in general, the lack of supervision has many consequences. That's where the stench usually comes from, and it's repulsive sometimes.