How to become a great scientist

...

Can you elaborate? Or at least provide another so funny meme image?

>Prove your skills

How to be a great scientist:
>Be talented

How not to be a great scientist:

1. Shit-post on a science board
2. Assume that everything in academia is all based on talent and high IQ.
3. Call people who hold different valid explanations than your own "brainlets"
4. Assume every field but your own is a meme.
5. Blame other people for your lackluster CV

Journal rankings affect funding and the survival of your research group

this makes you an amazing scientist, not just a great one

is something preventing you from getting funding from somewhere else?

maybe your research just isn't that important

My funding is fine, thank you (although not so important research at the moment). But what are these fundings from "somewhere else" than Academy or various foundations that really look at your merits? Selling kidneys? Making meth?

LOL. Do people not realize that no one will take your work seriously unless you publish in reputable journals and then build off that?

What other funds? To get grants you need to show that results from previous studies. Which comes from publications. Even company grants want to see that your are capable of doing what you propose.

You think Pfizer will give me a grant if I tell them I have a new idea for a drug methodology but don't show them any preliminary results?

Exactly.

>But what are these fundings from "somewhere else" than Academy or various foundations that really look at your merits? Selling kidneys? Making meth?
I don't know what research you do, but try finding someone who takes interest and values your research

>LOL. Do people not realize that no one will take your work seriously unless you publish in reputable journals and then build off that?
you just sound like the generic autismal STEM student who has 0 ability to pitch an idea, try taking a business/marketing class or something

>What other funds? To get grants you need to show that results from previous studies. Which comes from publications. Even company grants want to see that your are capable of doing what you propose.
Results are only results if they're published now? When did that happen? There's plenty of unpublished results and there's plenty of published mistakes

Get out of here.

>3. Ask if you can join a research group as an undergrad
>get denied
>ask in other placed
>get denied again
heh

hello?

Preliminary data. When you are hired as a new assistant professor, the department gives you start up funds to set up your lab and get preliminary data. You use that data to get grants. You can't "pitch an idea" to get grants moron. They want to see that you can actually do what you say you can, this isn't some cringe start-up culture.

keep limiting yourself i guess, up to you

Usually they accept free work force, and usually start giving some salary if you contribute enough.

Find a new professor in the department. They typically spend more time with their first group members. I knew someone who did research with a very distinguished professor but they never even once saw the professor, it was basically working for the post-doc.

Nah, it's a reputable journal.

>1. Read all the good books in your field
How do you find them?

>getting butt-hurt by obvious kids.

> someone randomly thinks your research sounds cool so they fund you
> only useless research remain unfunded
> if your research is interesting money incomes automatically

You sure live in a pretty world, user

>6. Make connections with your professor's colleagues and other research groups
That's the only step that matters.

Yes. My advisor was luck enough to meet and do research with a pioneer in the field before he became one.

Now he gets those sweet, sweet, collaborations.

>science field

>good books

You mean papers and textbooks. In other words, go to class.

>randomly
>automatically
Did I say bundles of money would magically appear in your lap? Obviously the world is not that pretty, try applying yourself and putting some effort in

>How to become a great scientist
Step 1: Have a high IQ.

To follow this up, if someone can raise $55,492 to make potato salad (kickstarter.com/projects/zackdangerbrown/potato-salad) there's clearly money to go around, get creative

55k will not produce any research.

Then raise more. You still haven't explained what this super expensive research you do is anyway.

I've spent a long time doing research with only a fraction of that, so what's your issue exactly?

>promotes publishing on own website
>promotes kickstarters for natural scientists

top kek

what, are you an economist? an engineer? a homeopath?

> engineers and homeopaths on same level

Who hurt you?

mathematician

and are you saying either of these are inherently bad ideas? you just seem lazy here and making excuses for why your research isn't booming

/thread

I do research in Chemical Biology.

I write grants from the NIH and NSF. The average is around 450k, but can be higher.

>mathematician

That's why. You don't run a lab, have to buy equipment, chemicals, pay graduate students, etc.

>pay graduate students
Why would mathematicians be exempt from this?

>You don't run a lab, have to buy equipment, chemicals, pay graduate students, etc.
Haha have you ever even stepped foot in a math department? There are certainly graduate students around, and the 'lab/equipment/chemicals' are instead computers and software. It's not just chalkboards anymore. And if you need computational power you need very expensive supercomputers which cost millions per year to run.

Why are you still just making excuses for not being more creative in fundraising?

Didn't say they were.

>I've spent a long time doing research with only a fraction of that, so what's your issue exactly?

There is a higher cost expenditure in the basic sciences.

How do you pay for a millions$/year computer with 50K, mister mathematician?

KEK.

>you don't have to pay...graduate students

you beg other departments to let you use their supercomputers real quick

By having someone else pay for them, i.e. the university.

I don't do any research that requires them, I was just addressing your claim that math experiments have to be so much cheaper than chemical biology experiments.

And if I did need them I wouldn't have to pay for them anyway since the university I work at already has set them up for us to use freely. Working somewhere with pre-existing technology is nice (this lowers research costs so you don't have to ask for 450k by the way, just a handy tip)

>research is cheap is somebody else pays for it
fucking prime argument. You're just a grad student who doesn't have to worry about this crap yet.

You have literally no idea what your are talking about.

The 450k doesn't all go to the professor.

> you don't have to ask for 450k by the way

Have fun not getting tenure.

>research is cheap if somebody else pays for it
Is that really what you got from reading that? No you clown, that's obviously not how it works. An experiment doesn't magically become less expensive, it just becomes less expensive TO ME by using already available resources/materials. You should try this sometime, optimizing your experiments beforehand (both in terms of time and money) will get you far in life.

'this crap' just sounds like your laziness in your ability to fundraise

>The 450k doesn't all go to the professor.
Where do you people learn to read? Where did I say this?

>no you clown that's not what I said
>proceeds to repeat the exact same point
Nobody cares if it's more or less expensive TO YOU. Getting free access to equipment is a form of subsidies by your university, in nature rather than cash.
And unless you're in a third grade uni that's starved for researchers, it IS submitted to the same results and publishing expectations as other forms of funding.

>And unless you're in a third grade uni that's starved for researchers, it IS submitted to the same results and publishing expectations as other forms of funding.
Whew, does your university have to babysit you that much? No wonder you have trouble getting funding.

I can literally access these computational resources from anywhere on the planet that has internet access and use them without anyone 'expecting' anything from me.

Some places require you to pay for the use of instrumentation. Obviously I'm not going to buy a million dollar NMR, but you still have to pay the department to use it,

Why are you all still stuck on some imaginary point that research is either completely free or prohibitively expensive? All I was advocating was being creative in how you get money for your research instead of whining about publication rankings.

>What's the point of publishing in print journals anymore? Isn't google the first resort for most people? Just put your work on your own website

Yes that's what I wrote. Try using your words next time if you want to get a point across.

>I can just produce nothing and my uni will keep me
you're either a student or your uni has no standard whatsoever

You must be braindead based on your level of reading comprehension, no wonder you have trouble getting funding. Please disconnect from Veeky Forums immediately and get to work.

Obviously a researcher needs to produce something, all I said was I can freely use the computers for whatever I want.

Try to understand the conversation you're posting in you absolute moron.
>Obviously a researcher needs to produce something
Wew finally you admit being wrong. Unless you think posting shit on your blog counts as scientific production for any serious establishment.

Alright you're clearly getting too involved in some extravagant mental gymnastics.

>Wew finally you admit being wrong.
About what?

>Unless you think posting shit on your blog counts as scientific production for any serious establishment.
You know there are blogs that are literally published as textbooks right?

>About what?
stop embarassing yourself nigger, you repeatedly claimed you thought you didn't need funding, when in reality it is your uni funding your research in nature rather than cash

>nigger
>you repeatedly claimed you thought you didn't need funding
Where did I claim this? In fact in I literally said I do get funding. And in I even said I don't use these other resources provided by the university.

I've purely been commenting on your inability to raise sufficient funds since you refuse to apply yourself.

>stir fry
>medium high heat
>doesn't even talk about oil

Wow, I bet you don't even smoke point. Enjoy being a fucking pleb.

I've never actually looked that closely at the picture, I rarely cook since I typically just go for takeout food (lots of leftover money by doing research economically). Thanks for letting me know I should delete it though.

>medium high heat
>doesn't even talk about oil
>>Heat a wok over medium-high heat. Add 2 tbsp cooking oil.
Is your attention span that short bruddah?

>I didn't say that
>I didn't say this
In other word you said nothing of value, and the point remain you have to publish to get funds, be it for your university or from other agencies.
The fact that funds can take the form of natures is an absolutely trivial point that brings nothing to the table.
Stop interfering in conversations if you have no idea where you're going in the first place.

>In other word you said nothing of value, and the point remain you have to publish to get funds, be it for your university or from other agencies.
It amazes me how hellbent you are on only accepting money from agencies requiring publications, why don't you try something else? This is the point I've been making the entire thread. The only reason I can imagine why you keep avoiding it is intellectual dishonesty. You're inability to work through simple reasoning is certainly not convincing me to invest in you, I'd recommend looking elsewhere.

>The fact that funds can take the form of natures is an absolutely trivial point that brings nothing to the table.
This was brought up in , which was not my post. And I agree it is trivial.

>Stop interfering in conversations if you have no idea where you're going in the first place.
Interfering with what? My first post was a question about why people waste time and resources getting journal publications

>why don't you try something else? This is the point I've been making the entire thread
Then why would you give universities as an example, when they are requiring publications?

>This was brought up in
In response to If you're having a 50K/year fund PLUS 50K worth of services from the university, it means your funding is 100K. I mean that's not hard to grasp for fuck's sake.

>My first post was a question about why people waste time and resources getting journal publications
The amount of money moved by wacky kickstarters isn't nearly close to what's needed to finance global science. Don't be a trend-following faggot who thinks because he saw a funny kickstarter succeed once, everything works like that now.

The whole reason I make split pea soup is to finally use up that ham bone and random bits left over...

>Then why would you give universities as an example, when they are requiring publications?
Because like I said, the one I work at doesn't require publications for me to use their computers since I don't need to be babysat like you. This is called personal responsibility.

>If you're having a 50K/year fund PLUS 50K worth of services from the university, it means your funding is 100K. I mean that's not hard to grasp for fuck's sake.
Claiming that computers I can either use or not use constitute funding is intellectually dishonest. It's like saying the roads I don't drive on are paved for me.

>The amount of money moved by wacky kickstarters isn't nearly close to what's needed to finance global science. Don't be a trend-following faggot who thinks because he saw a funny kickstarter succeed once, everything works like that now.
Those two men made 50k to make a bowl of potato salad, so try making 9 bowls and you can make the 450k for whatever chemical biology you do. Alternatively, design a cooler and get 13 million dollars of funding (kickstarter.com/projects/ryangrepper/coolest-cooler-21st-century-cooler-thats-actually). Is this still not enough for your precious 'global science' (?). You only said 450k before so this should fund several of your experiments.

To be a great scientist you have to be an artist, with a creative intuition.

oh and you are very mistaken calling me the 'trend-following faggot' when you're the one who exclusively applies to so few (2?) agencies for money competing against the probably thousands of other 'trend-following faggots'

>Because like I said, the one I work at doesn't require publications for me to use their computers
Again, are you a student, or does your university just agrees to keep you even if you publish nothing? Never answered that bub.

>Claiming that computers I can either use or not use constitute funding is intellectually dishonest
Are you kidding me? In a bunch of research institutions you have to pay for machine use. If you don't have to pay, then it's a present. You think running server farms is free?

>Alternatively, design a cooler
Why are you showing some engineering project to talk about science funding?
Are you sort of dumb?

>look some guys made 45K on kickstarter
>WE CAN ALL DO THAT NOW
you sound like a retarded business major

There is no way this guy can be a math professor, maybe at a community college.

>Again, are you a student, or does your university just agrees to keep you even if you publish nothing?
I haphazardly left out the word 'journal' before 'publications' in my post. Of course I publish, but as was the focus of my very first post which I've already brought up, open publishing is much more beneficial to the research community compared to journals. Why do you even bother responding if you read so selectively?

>Are you kidding me?
No.

>You think running server farms is free?
No. Like I've already said in and , computers cost money and the university pays for it.

>Why are you showing some engineering project to talk about science funding?
I'm showing you creative fundraising techniques which you fail to grasp.

I never claimed anyone can do it. But I will specifically claim that you and
certainly can't do it based on your narrow-mindedness.

You can get your personal money for noodles and baby oil with your kickstarters, but you don't have any idea how universities and research councils distribute money.

You can publish your math in anywhere you want and still get reputation as a mathematician, but in experimental sciences you REALLY need to get your research in highly valued journals. No one will take your new research seriously if it's published in Nigerian Journal of Astrophysics or your own web page instead of valued journals. I agree that open publishing is more beneficial in the long run, but currently big funding is dependent on your publication history and the journal ranking.

>assuming all sciences have same requirements as math
>20 outdated computers + free open source software + staff = devices worth a million + staff + perishable equipment
>telling others where to publish and how to get money the right way
>says your research isn't important and you have funding issues
>thinks kickstarters>competed funding

highschooler with a math career fantasy confirmed

probably a GNUtard too

OP, if you follow these steps, the only snowball effect that will begin is that between you and your GAY lover.

He hates competed funding because he couldn't beat other competitors, and now he praises kickstarter because it was his only salvation. He probably promised to make an equation that cures all known diseases and boosts the effect of snake oil supplements, and idiots donated. He has already spent the money on amphetamine and hookers.

He also despises REAL journals, because his works are never getting up there.

Or maybe he's a filthy MBA troll pretending to be a mathematician.

What's the likelihood that I can have a stable research position at a university with a master's degree?

Master's degree gives mainly part-time teaching / office work in good universities. May give a long-term research job in obscure universities.

M.Sc. -> Ph.D. -> post-doc -> junior fellow -> senior fellow / adjunct professor -> professor is the way.

Fuck. I'll be in my thirties by then. Still, the part-time teaching/office work seems like it'll be somewhat fun until I finish my Ph.D and everything after if I bother. Thank you.

Depends on what you get it in. A lot of big labs will have staff scientists on board. I don't necessarily know how stable, but some of the guys can be there for a while.

Mate, PhD and everything after are full time jobs.

You also get paid to do a PhD.

Here in Canada you get paid for an M.Sc as well, at least in the engineering department at most schools.

Some US programs fund it too, but it's rare.

You can win fellowships. I won a NSF grant for a Ph.D but used it for a M.S. instead when I decided to change go to medical school.

thru 1-8. while you do research as a lackey, enjoy your precious undergrad gpa turn into dust.

got first-hand experience?

sort of

I managed to maintain a good GPA while working in a research group. It increased my motivation, and group members gave me insight to some matters.

because you went to an easy college.

they are all easy, brainlet