Can Amateur Scientists Conduct Meaningful Research Without a Paid Position?

[twofish-quant]

Also to be blunt the biggest problem you are going to run into if you try to do something "unconventional" is the "scientist glut." Paul Krugman came up with the half joking idea that we could get the economy moving again by faking an alien invasion. If the Earth were threatened with alien invasion, then people would move heaven and Earth to make it easy for astrophysicists to research in order to deal with the alien threat.

The problem is that no one is going to make it easy for you to do something "unconventional" because there is a massive glut of physicists as it is, and if you make it *easier* for people to study physics and to do physics research without being affiliated with a university, you just increase the glut.

However, the fact that there is a "glut" means that there is something deeply, deeply wrong with the economy, and it's going to get worse.

 

[chronon]

Also library access is going to be a problem. It's surprisingly hard to get borrowing privileges in a research library once you leave the university. You'd *think* that you could just go up to a library, offer a set fee (I'd gladly pay $2K/year) and then get library access, but the licensing agreement with publishers don't let them do that.

I find this surprising. The Bodleian library admits all graduates of the University of Oxford and is certainly willing to consider others doing private research (for fees which are much less than $2k per year) http://www.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/services/admissions/procedure. You can't borrow books, but if you're working on your own, then visiting the library now and again is probably a good thing. There doesn't seem to be a problem with accessing licenced material online (but I suppose they might implement a restriction - I really hope not)

 

[PAllen]

I find this surprising. The Bodleian library admits all graduates of the University of Oxford and is certainly willing to consider others doing private research (for fees which are much less than $2k per year) http://www.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/services/admissions/procedure. You can't borrow books, but if you're working on your own, then visiting the library now and again is probably a good thing. There doesn't seem to be a problem with accessing licenced material online (but I suppose they might implement a restriction - I really hope not)

I think in the US, a lot depends on some affiliation, however small. The college I went to for a few semesters decades ago will still provide full access to their library system for peanuts (I can't actually take advantage of this because I live too far away; but I've checked periodically to make sure the option is still available). However, my understanding is they have no standard policy at any price to offer access to someone with no association to the college.

 

[boomtrain]

There are things that are going on in China that scare the living bejeezus out of me. Basically the Chinese government is investing very heavily in high technology through state-owned enterprises. The typical US response is that this investment is going to be wasted since "markets-good/government-bad".

If it isn't then the US is going to have some serious, serious problems in a few years.

maybe the typical american recognizes the http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/before-solyndra-a-long-history-of-failed-government-energy-projects/2011/10/25/gIQA1xG0CN_story.html" , whereas the chinese government is smarter/less corrupt?

 

[atyy]

http://librarians.aps.org/public-access-announcement"

This helps with keeping updated, but not with doing experiments. With no money, you can probably only do theory research (unless you are Raman). And theory papers have long been free on arXiv.

I'm not sure this is practically helpful, but it is an interesting story: http://cms.csr.nih.gov/AboutCSR/CSRNIHHistory/NIHRocketBoys/RocketToon.htm" .

Actually, I would like to say that most "cutting edge" science is probably not that cutting edge. So I expect a sharp eye in the everyday will find problems just as interesting and difficult. In fact, I think even that is too elitist: http://qchu.wordpress.com/" .

 

[ParticleGrl]

maybe the typical american recognizes the inability of their government to invest in high-tech, whereas the chinese government is smarter/less corrupt?

Both science and capitalism are systems built on failure. For every Lowe's hardware that takes off, thousands of mom-and-pop hardware stores fail. Most venture capital projects fail, but the ones that do succeed make enough money to cover the loss.

Similarly, in science MOST ideas don't work out, and even fantastic projects often take longer than expected.

If most Americans think the government can't invest in high-tech, then most Americans are misinformed. A great deal of modern technology rests on fundamental work done at American Universities under government grants.

 

[twofish-quant]

maybe the typical american recognizes the http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/before-solyndra-a-long-history-of-failed-government-energy-projects/2011/10/25/gIQA1xG0CN_story.html" , whereas the chinese government is smarter/less corrupt?

The Chinese government is certainly not smarter or less corrupt, but as far as basic research goes, it's much more tolerant of failure. If you show me ten small Chinese high-tech companies with state investment, I'm willing to guess that four of them are corrupt, five of them are incompetent, and it's the one left over that manages to change the world.

Part of the reason, I'm quite tolerant of failure here is my experiences with the dot-com boom. You have a ton of dot-com's, most of which were either incompetent or corrupt, but you have one or two that manage to change the world. If you decide not to "waste" your money on science and technology, then it's going to go into real estate or something even sillier.

In any event, there is a massive brain drain that is going from US to China. Silicon Valley was built in large part by Chinese and Indian entrepreneurs, but the next generation are all getting plane tickets and going to Beijing.

 

[twofish-quant]

Most venture capital projects fail, but the ones that do succeed make enough money to cover the loss.

And sometimes *one* idea that works pays for the thousands that don't many times over. Malcolm Gladwell wrote a story on Xerox PARC. PARC is famous for missing the boat on the mouse, the computer UI, and other things, but they also invented the laser printer, and that one idea has paid for the entire cost of PARC a thousand times over.

If most Americans think the government can't invest in high-tech, then most Americans are misinformed. A great deal of modern technology rests on fundamental work done at American Universities under government grants.

And a lot of that happens under Department of Defense. One thing that happened in the Cold War, was the threat of the Russians was enough to justify *massive* spending. Yes there was a ton of fraud and waste, but quite a bit of good came out of it.

Part of what I'd like to see is some "friendly competition" between the major powers. Figure out a way to convince countries to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on things that don't run the risk of getting someone killed. The best thing that could happen to the US space program is if China announces that it wants to plant a red flag on the moon. Only this time the race won't end at the moon. Loser goes for Mars.

 

[atyy]

Part of what I'd like to see is some "friendly competition" between the major powers. Figure out a way to convince countries to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on things that don't run the risk of getting someone killed. The best thing that could happen to the US space program is if China announces that it wants to plant a red flag on the moon. Only this time the race won't end at the moon. Loser goes for Mars.

What's the current understanding on who owns the moon or Mars if they get there first?

 

[twofish-quant]

What's the current understanding on who owns the moon or Mars if they get there first?

It's governed by the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 which prohibits claims of national sovereignty in outer space.

Getting back to the topic of this thread. A lot depends on what you want to do. If you want to do research for personal accomplishment, there's a lot you can do on your own. However, I grew up on Star Trek and if you want to be part of a program to get us off this planet and sent manned rockets to Mars, you can't do that on your own.

 

[nazarbaz]

No one can stop the rise of China, even the US... They will probably take the lead in the second half of the 21st century... Somehow, they are replicating the american model : reaching the supremacy by capitalism, science and militarism... And they are wise enough to fund this without having recourse to debt...
I'm not worried by the american case... You will have the resources to stay ahead... What puzzles me is the meaning and the outcome of this desire to be the first, the champion, the leader and so on... Competition as the foundation of progress... With this logic, war become a state of mind that dominates even in peace time...

 

[chrisbaird]

No one can stop the rise of China, even the US... They will probably take the lead in the second half of the 21st century... Somehow, they are replicating the american model : reaching the supremacy by capitalism, science and militarism... And they are wise enough to fund this without having recourse to debt...
I'm not worried by the american case... You will have the resources to stay ahead... What puzzles me is the meaning and the outcome of this desire to be the first, the champion, the leader and so on... Competition as the foundation of progress... With this logic, war become a state of mind that dominates even in peace time...

Let's be careful to not overstate China's trajectory and cower in fear at their progress. China has some major demographical problems that they will have to overcome if they are to sustain their current progress. For instance, the one-child policy has lead to a generation of adult males unable to find female companionship because the females simply don't exist in large numbers; they were aborted before being born. Also, there are still large swaths of the population that are impoverished and uneducated. You can't sustain a rapid economic growth with an unstable society. Implementing free market principles has done wonders for China's economy, but it can't fix everything if the people are still denied basic human rights, like having more than one child.

Personally, I cheer on China's rise. As a free market proponent, I see the rise of an economy
anywhere as beneficial to all economies (as long as the increased wealth is not used for war). The fact that "Made in China" is stamped on the bottom of a lot of consumer goods is a good thing. That is why those goods are so inexpensive for us to purchase. We are directly benefited by China's economic rise.

 

[Opus_723]

On the other hand, if you settle in some nice college town like Boston or NYC, you can end up going to the major seminars.

Also one piece of advice. Don't be an outsider. Your goal here is not to be an outsider, but to figure out how to become an insider without university support. You aren't trying to overthrow the system but rather figure out how to join it.

Good advice. I don't want to be an outsider. I don't have any delusions about changing the world as some magical, lone scientist on a mountaintop or whatever. Basically, I know that it's very hard to get a research position, but I can't imagine just passing up basic research altogether just because I can't get THE job. I'm still going to shoot for the ideal job, but I'm doing so with full knowledge that the chances are slim at best. So I'm cautiously exploring ways to be involved in science and the scientific community without being paid to do so. It's my hope that even if I don't end up as a paid researcher I can still be involved in the community and contribute something meaningful.

 

[twofish-quant]

Let's be careful to not overstate China's trajectory and cower in fear at their progress.

From my point of view, this isn't a conversation about China but about the United States. The US is vastly underfunding science research, and China is merely rolling out the red carpet to Ph.D.'s that aren't getting jobs in the US.

I'm alarmed that more people in the US aren't alarmed at the brain drain.

Personally, I cheer on China's rise. As a free market proponent, I see the rise of an economy
anywhere as beneficial to all economies

The problem is that I've found that people in the US still haven't understood how much China has changed, and what the implications of those changes are. People in the US think of China as a poor country or a giant prison camp, neither of which are true. There are parts of China with standards of living roughly that of the United States, which makes it possible for the country to give attractive offers to physics Ph.D.'s.

The fact that "Made in China" is stamped on the bottom of a lot of consumer goods is a good thing. That is why those goods are so inexpensive for us to purchase. We are directly benefited by China's economic rise.

But China is rapidly moving out of manufacturing and into higher-value research and development, and there is this giant sucking sound as high technology people (often with physics Ph.D.'s) are being drawn from the US to China.

 

[twofish-quant]

No one can stop the rise of China, even the US... They will probably take the lead in the second half of the 21st century...

I don't think that there is any external force that can stop China's rise, but remember that India is also rising, so China isn't going to rule the world. What role the US wants to play is something that people in the US have to think about. There is this idea that the China, India will manufacture widgets while the US maintains power by being the center of global research, but that's falling apart in a big, big way.

And they are wise enough to fund this without having recourse to debt...

There are some massive debts, but they are internal.

Take farmer move them to city. Productivity increases. Take some of that wealth, build stuff that generates more wealth. That's going to stop working in about a decade, when all of the farmers have moved to the cities, so the government is trying to figure out the next step. It's unclear exactly what it will look like, but it does involve massive numbers of physics Ph.D.'s.

The US has the best system of scientific research in the world. China isn't anywhere close. But the Chinese government realizes that to create a scientific research system takes *decades* and it's in the process of building things up. Meanwhile, there is a shocking amount of neglect that the US government has on this issue. Part of the reason is that the people with power in the US are living in something of a bubble. Government officials talk to people in professional societies who already have tenure.

One other problem is that much of the world economy is based on corporations and multi-national corporations (outside of a few industries like defense) are not terribly patriotic. Take Microsoft. If it's in Microsoft's interest to create many research centers in China, it will do it. This might have bad impact on US science, but it's not Microsoft's job to care about this.

What puzzles me is the meaning and the outcome of this desire to be the first, the champion, the leader and so on...

It's something that's very deeply embedded in the US psyche, and one thing that is interesting is to talk with people from other countries (Canada, Britain, France, Germany etc.) that don't have this view of the world, One reason for the American psyche is that the US has never lost an empire in the way that the British and French did.

 

[Sankaku]

I don't think that there is any external force that can stop China's rise...

Oil, food, water.

 

[chiro]

Oil, food, water.

That will stop virtually anyone!