Jonathan Cole used to be provost of Colombia University. He has written a book called T he Great American University, in which, according to this review,
He lists their dazzling achievements, which in biology and medicine include findings on gene-splicing, recombinant DNA, retroviruses, cancer therapies, cochÂlear implants, the fetal ultrasound scanner, the hepatitis B vaccine, prions, stem cells, organ transplantation and even a treatment for head lice. . . . In a chapter on the social sciences, he cites, among many others, such useful innovations as theories of human capital and social mobility, research in linguistics and even the use of prices to reduce traffic jams.
“Research in linguistics”? Yes, that sounds dazzling. I’m sure those “theories of human capital” have been v v “useful”. And who would have thought that if you raise the price of something (“use of prices to reduce traffic jams”) . . . people use less of it? Which was traffic engineering, not social science. Did the reviewer, an economics professor at Harvard named Claudia Goldin, write this with a straight face?
The “dazzling achievements” in biology and medicine are only slightly less unconvincing.”Gene splicing” and “recombinant DNA” research are different names for the same thing. Fetal ultrasound scanners may cause autism. Vaccines were not invented by an American university professor. The discovery of prions has had no obvious non-laboratory use — besides being questionable. Stem-cell research has yet to produce anything of use outside of labs. To be fair, gene splicing has been used to produce human insulin, which is better than the insulin previously available, but conspicuously absent from the list of accomplishments is prevention of diabetes — not to mention allergies, obesity, depression, arthritis, stroke, or any of the other lifestyle problems that a large fraction of Americans suffer from. Such achievements would be truly useful. Great American universities haven’t given us any of those . . but they have given us a treatment for head lice.
There’s a reason for the term ivory tower. Apparently Cole, conscious of the term, is trying to argue against it — but merely shows why it exists. (I’m assuming the review is accurate.) It reminds me of the time that top Chinese students, visiting top American colleges such as Harvard and Yale, found the American students ignorant and arrogant. The theme of Cole’s book is that American universities are in trouble and need more support. What useful stuff they’ve accomplished is central to his argument. When I was an undergrad, I read Thorstein Veblen’s bitter The Higher Learning in America, which said American universities were dysfunctional. He mentioned “committees for the sifting of sawdust.”
More “Graduate school in the humanities is a trap” (via Marginal Revolution).
“Gene-splicing, recombinant DNA, and stem-cell research have yet to produce anything of use outside research labs.”
Humulin (human insulin produced by bacteria) is the product of recombinant DNA technology, isn’t it?
Alex, you’re right. Thanks for the correction.
Prions give us a way to understand mad-cow disease and test whether a given cow is affected by the disease.
As a result we can kill those cows that are effected and therefore prevent the spread of the disease.
Mad cow disease could become a bigger crisis without the understanding of prions.
“By “cancer therapies” does the reviewer mean oncogenes — the discovery of which won a Nobel Prize but hasn’t saved a single life? ”
Umm, testing tumors for mutations in oncogenes is extremely important for a bunch of cancers (colon cancer tumors with KRAS mutations don’t respond to anti-EGFR drugs, for the most basic example). It’s now standard in many cancers to take a look at oncogenes in the tumor in order to see what treatments will work…
Nate, thanks for the correction.
ChristianKI, you don’t need to look for prions to figure out if a cow has mad-cow disease. Such a test has never been used, as far as I know.
As a humanities major I enjoyed the, “Graduate school in the Humanities is a trap” article.
I’m thankful for my history professor for explaining to me the grim journey a history professor must take to get a tenured position at any institution.
Seth wrote: “Stem-cell research has yet to produce anything of use outside of labs.”
Adult stem cells have been used to treat patients for various conditions, such as leukemia.
I seem to recall stem cells being used to regrow the dead parts of people’s hearts (not speaking figuratively).
Anybody who doubts the liveliness of linguistics research should hie on over to Language Log, https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/ for an awakening.
A very great deal of very important work is going on in universities. A much greater amount of pointless wankage is also going on in universities. These are not contradictions, and it would be hard to get the former without the latter. Even in physics departments, while the string theorists demand public attention, most physicists aren’t string theorists, and many are doing important work in, e.g., materials science, which finds its way quickly into new products.
I feel obliged to put in a word for academia, which I am normally not inclined to do–I am an academic (a current PhD student) who is well aware of the dysfunctional nature of the American system. I am also a self-experimenter and know very well how much can be begun via non-peer-reviewed, non-double-blind type research. The medical “system” in this country is a business, with all business’ concomitant issues, and that goes for academia too.
All that said, I’m not sure we should be so quick to dismiss the benefits of seemingly “obvious” or un-dazzling research or achievements in the academic system. Your own research shows that something which might be patently obvious or unobvious to one person might be seen very differently by another. As a theoretical linguist, I can be fairly certain that none of my research is going to directly affect the health of my fellow man any time soon (though I certainly don’t speak for other theoretical linguists). However, there is a great deal of linguistic research that focuses on far more practical matters (how best to help patients with aphasias regain their ability to talk, for instance). I would not have a hard time keeping a straight face while calling any of that research dazzling.
The American academic machine is undoubtedly broken. People outside of academia have made some of the greatest advancements in our knowledge base, yes. But I would caution even those of us who agree on these points to avoid the trap of eschewing research that cannot be immediately shown to be useful in a socioeconomic sense–after all, it is from such research (whether by a university professor or a patent examiner) that so much of our real advances come. Academia in America needs major adjustments–but I don’t believe that it’s a completely lost cause.
Sylvia, that was Veblen’s critique. The subtitle of The Higher Learning in America was “A Memorandum On the Conduct of Universities By Business Men”. For all I know some linguistics research is dazzling, but you don’t convince me of that with the bland description “linguistics research”.
Tom, by “stem-cell research” I meant stem cells used as a research tool, not as a therapeutic tool.
Having spent his entire professional career in academia, Cole should have noticed that professors, especially at elite schools, dislike doing research with obvious value. It strikes them as menial. “Practical” and “applied” are terms of disparagement, whereas “pure” research (research without obvious value) is good. Cole ignores this just as humanities professors ignore the horrible job prospects of their graduate students.
Seth,
Normally you criticize biology and medicine for not having applications. When someone mentioned the application for stem cells, you said
“Tom, by “stem-cell research” I meant stem cells used as a research tool, not as a therapeutic tool.”
What does this mean?
Biologists haven’t learned a single thing from using stem cells as a research tool? That doesn’t seem true at all and it sounds like you made no effort to verify it.
Thanks,
Jeff
Jeff, stem cells are a research tool. They are used in labs. In petri dishes. This is quite different than their use in hospitals. I don’t mean nothing has been learned from stem-cell research, I mean nothing of practical value has been learned. Nothing that warrants being called a “dazzling achievement”. Cole is trying to say that university research has benefited the public. So the public — the rest of us — should help the university in its hour of need. This is why I am focusing on the absence of practical value. Not scientific value. If you know of something of practical value that has come from stem-cell research, I’d love to know about it.
Sort of on topic
Seth, have you seen Henk Tennekes resignation letter to the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences?
Scientist Resigns
I don’t think “dysfunctional” is limited to the USA.
No I hadn’t seen it, thanks.
“If you know of something of practical value that has come from stem-cell research, I’d love to know about it. ”
I do not understand how Tom’s post is not an example of this. He said they’re using it to treat disease! They wouldn’t be doing that without the research.
By “stem cell research” I meant the research you learn about when you google “stem cell research”. For example,
NIH Announces First hESC Lines Eligible for Funding
Dec. 2, 2009
The ISSCR is encouraged by the announcement by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) of 13 human embryonic stem cell lines now eligible for use in NIH-funded research under the guidelines adopted in July, 2009. More lines are expected to be named in the future. This represents a significant step forward in allowing researchers access to an increased range of lines which will accelerate efforts to understand and treat major public health problems.
As far as I know, it was to such research that Jonathan Cole was referring. The term “stem cell research” doesn’t include all research with stem cells, just as the term “experimental psychology” doesn’t include all psychology research that uses experiments.
Congestion pricing is economics, not traffic engineering. And there’s more to it than “if you raise the price, people use less.” From Bill Vickrey’s Economics Nobel Prize citation (about subway fares, a closely related issue to congestion pricing):
“Efficient pricing of public services permeates Vickrey’s scientific production. He has not only made significant theoretical contributions, but – unlike most excellent theorists – he has also followed up on his proposals all the way to their practical application. An example is Vickrey’s famous study of the New York subway fare system in the 1950s. His proposal was an early attempt at efficient pricing of public services, under the restriction that the authorities should receive full cost coverage. His study represents more than an improvement on the basic pricing principle (so-called Ramsey pricing); it is also fascinating in its wealth of detail.”
Ragout, after Bill Vickrey received the 1996 Nobel Prize in Economics, he told a journalist his prize-winning work was “at best . . . of minor significance in terms of human welfare” (quoted by John Cassidy in his recent book about economics). So I think this example supports my point.