Sometimes I feel like biology is the “Sharma ji ka beta” of science. You know the kid who does everything right, shows up when it matters most, but still gets questioned, doubted, or quietly sidelined. Think back to the times where the mankind faced the most difficult times. Biology gave us rapid diagnostics, and the entire molecular understanding of how the bodyworks. It has given us therapies for cancer, insights into the brain, tools to edit genes. In short, biology has repeatedly proven its worth, often in life-saving ways. Yet somehow, it doesn’t always get the recognition or attention it deserves. Computer science, on the other hand, feels like the favorite child. It gets the limelight, the funding, the hype. Every new breakthrough in AI or app development becomes a headline. People want to study it, invest in it, and call it “the future.” And to be fair it is dazzling. Algorithms, machine learning, and large-scale computing have changed the way we live. But here’s the ...
It startles me to see an article that draws an analogy between the cobra effect and academia - Interesting parallels. The emphasis on - how metrics like impact factor, h-index, grants, and tenure tracks have overshadowed the purpose of doing science is the central point of discussion. Towards the end, the article leaves you with a question of where collectively restructuring is required to enable real progress. But, how to do that? In other words, how to resurrect the dying "soul" of academia and get over "pretentious" science? Here are my thoughts: I think the answer lies in where it all started. Ask oneself the following question- What enabled the concept of doing a Ph.D.? Back in the day, the excitement to understand takes the front seat, which has been instrumental in the pursuit to discover things, and the by-product of this process is a Ph.D. What's happening now? Vice versa? Relatively speaking, we have reached a stage where every lab is equipped with en...