Reading Sabine’s recent blog posts (physicists still perplexed I ask for and because science matters), and my own experience, has solidified my perception that fundamental physics has a social problem.
I think it comes down to economics, scientists are trained via incentives in the feedback cycle of publish, get positions and grants so that they can continue to publish. It impacts both experimentalists and theorists, and can cause waste in money and effort and, worst of all, true advances can become accidental.
In 2004 I changed from HEP theory because I thought what was needed, in HEP, was experiment. Today, I am more inclined to think that HEP Theory is needed, but not the sort that results in quick publications.
I have a radical suggestion.
Instead of rewarding publications with tenured positions and significant grants, why not return back to the older model where only a few people are tenured with nice positions and large enough grants to hire junior faculty and scientists (postdocs)?
The idea is to try and reward real advances rather than publications. By real advances I mean advances that would end up in an upper level undergraduate text book. This would fix the incentives.
I am not suggesting that we remove tenure or plum positions from anyone. I am suggesting, going forward, that large grants, tenured positions and the invitation to sit on significant decision making bodies should go to those senior scientists who have made significant advances.
The rest should have some continuing position, like untenured Research Professor, until such a time as their work is proven to be valuable. Or move on into Teaching or Industry. And such positions (untenured Research Professor and Teaching Professor) should be paid respectably.
