What exactly do researchers do?

[jsmoke]

In 2017/18 there were just over 100k doctorate research students in the UK, then you have all the post docs and all the other levels(research assistant, researcher, lecturer) right up to head of department. Then you have the private companies with their own research groups and even charity based organisations such as the Cambridge Crystallographic Data Centre. Not to mention every other country in the world taking the number of researchers to what must be millions of people.

So that's a lot of researchers, now I'm sure I'm showing my ignorance but what do these researchers do all day, is there really that much to research and discover. What would be an average day for them, are they constantly researching, does their group leader give them a task to do or are they sitting around drinking coffee all day?

I'm puzzled as to what goes on. I've read plenty of PhD titles, some are difficult to even pronounce. So I understand things get complex when studying things at an atomic, micro or macro level but I can't see the need for millions of researchers researching the same thing for example. Maybe it's just the government getting bums on seats as what else are they going to do but is there value from each researcher that passes through the system, does everybody bring something new to light?

 

[adolf hamster]

These days? Sit at home annoyed we cant get into the lab and do work.

Until we've truly unlocked the truth of everything there will be new things to discover, to invent.

You need people to try the high risk stuff, the things that might not prove to be valuable or revolutionary, companies dont want to risk money on anything that doesnt guarantee profit.

 

[Arsonist]

Everything. Almost everything in your daily life will have had researchers looking into at some point.
Just one really basic example...watching your TV? Research into electrical efficiency, display clarity, new visual technologies, social/demographic research into viewing habits, affordability, affect on biology (eyes, ears, brain), affect on society etc.....these are just what I can rattle off without even putting any thought into it. Now thing about any subject on the micro and macro scale...medical, economic, political, geographical, to what type of hot sauce the average Brit prefers, the best laundry powder for newborn babies, how secure different webcams are over certain networks. Everything requires research.

The way we live our lives is entirely effected by the research that's been done between now and the last few thousand years.

 

[ianh]

Research?

 

[jsmoke]

Research?

But in science, what's left to research, are the majority of papers released token gestures or are they all furthering science in some way.

 

[Zefan]

But in science, what's left to research

So you seriously believe that humanity is just "done" now?

 

[checjb]

There will always be a need for researchers. Until we - as a species - know everything then there is always something to learn. How do you think that happens? Someone asks "How does X work? Nobody knows? OK, I'll work it out by....wait for it....researching it."
Cancer research (the topic, not the charity) has huge numbers of people working on it because we don't fully know how cancers work and, therefore, we can't prevent them. Those people are working to do exactly that. It's not like they have a book they can just pick up with all the answers in it so they have to conduct research. I did my own research in biochemistry and chemistry during my degree, PhD and post-doc phases. Nothing ground breaking but my own work has been built on by those that followed me and so on. It's like building a wall. The wall in the summation of human understanding and every brick is another little titbit of info worked out by a researcher somewhere.

 

[Raymond Lin]

But in science, what's left to research, are the majority of papers released token gestures or are they all furthering science in some way.

Did you just ask what’s left to research?

 

[jsmoke]

There will always be a need for researchers. Until we - as a species - know everything then there is always something to learn. How do you think that happens? Someone asks "How does X work? Nobody knows? OK, I'll work it out by....wait for it....researching it."
Cancer research (the topic, not the charity) has huge numbers of people working on it because we don't fully know how cancers work and, therefore, we can't prevent them. Those people are working to do exactly that. It's not like they have a book they can just pick up with all the answers in it so they have to conduct research. I did my own research in biochemistry and chemistry during my degree, PhD and post-doc phases. Nothing ground breaking but my own work has been built on by those that followed me and so on. It's like building a wall. The wall in the summation of human understanding and every brick is another little titbit of info worked out by a researcher somewhere.

Cancer research has been going on for decades, how many thousands of people have been researching it yet what's the progress, drugs that generally don't work, surgery or radiation.

Has any progress actually been made, I feel it's a dead end street.

 

[checjb]

In answer to that I'd just present anyone who's life has been saved my chemo, novel surgical techniques, faster diagnosis, etc. All the fruits of research.
I can't help but feel you're just trolling though.

 

[Raymond Lin]

Cancer research has been going on for decades, how many thousands of people have been researching it yet what's the progress, drugs that generally don't work, surgery or radiation.

Has any progress actually been made, I feel it's a dead end street.

I say this in the nicest possible way, it is clear you are not qualified but you sound like you are not smart enough to ask the question. It’s all not only naive but it’s...and I don’t want to say stupid, what’s the word.... defeatist if I am putting it nicely.

I don’t know the future but look how much progress has been add in the past 100 years, and out of the life time of our species, you think this is it? Really?

I’d say let the smart people do smart things, I might not understand them but I understand that they are smarter than me to question them, especially when it comes to science.

 

[jsmoke]

I say this in the nicest possible way, it is clear you are not qualify but you sound like you are not smart enough to ask the question. It’s all not only naive but it’s...and I don’t want to say stupid, what’s the word.... defeatist if I am putting it nicely.

I don’t know the future but look how much progress has been add in the past 100 years, and out of the life time of our species, you think this is it? Really?

I agree it is quite defeatist. I think it's the fact that tax payers are funding the research in the universities and little is actually of any benefit so it seems hence why I wondered what actually goes on.

 

[Werewolf]

But in science, what's left to research, are the majority of papers released token gestures or are they all furthering science in some way.

If you think we've done more than scratch the surface of what is to be learned you're really showing your ignorance.

For example one of my friends works as a researcher and has done work on how to generate electricity for isolated sensors from ambient noise/the vibrations you get in pipes/fences/the road and that's "just" an application of existing sciences and materials in a new way.
Companies like Intel will have hundreds/thousands just working on how to make better CPU's looking at the materials and trying to find new and better combinations, or how to refine the process so that you get a more consistent result, it can take thousands of attempts to find out why something worked once and what factors influenced it and to what extent (and every failed result is in itself a positive and can result in new lines of research as something that is a failure for it's intended use can be massively important in another).

In medicine there are currently tens of thousands looking into how to treat Covid, often going over older treatments trying to see if they're of any use (IIRC they had several supercomputers doing simulations of every medication that could be useful to see if there was any possible effect, as a start).
In archaeology they are still trying to learn how many "common" things were done just 500 years ago, let alone 5000, as even when there were written records no one thought to write down the exact process for making every things because you learned them from your family or a craftsman.
In Geology they're using "researchers" every day to make sure that your new bridge won't fall down because the ground isn't what was expected, whilst materials researchers are trying to find out how to improve that bridge by using new materials, others are doing research on how the weather in a specific area will affect the design and materials.

Even when you know something happened and have it on film, you often still need to do research to work out exactly how and why it happened - IIRC with 9/11 they knew the basics of why they fell, but still had to do research to find out exactly why the trade towers fell as they did (for example "research" in that instance included materials, and historical records such as reports from inspections and photos*), and in the process created new computer models that could be used to design better buildings in the future.


*A key thing they found out was how badly the fire proofing insulation had been applied, which meant that the steel structure was affected far more badly than it should have been, both on it's own and from the impact of the collision breaking more of it away than should have happened.

 

[Raymond Lin]

I agree it is quite defeatist. I think it's the fact that tax payers are funding the research in the universities and little is actually of any benefit so it seems hence why I wondered what actually goes on.

A lot of research don’t come out with a direct product, a lot of research sets out to find out one thing, sometimes it discovers something else, which someone else finds a use for, like viagra. That wasn’t the purpose of that research, it wasn’t until later it was used to treat impotence.

 

[Jono8]

I think we should research, whether humanity has researched everything it can possibly research.

 

[tom_nieto]

But in science, what's left to research, are the majority of papers released token gestures or are they all furthering science in some way.

I agree it is quite defeatist. I think it's the fact that tax payers are funding the research in the universities and little is actually of any benefit so it seems hence why I wondered what actually goes on.

A small piece of me just died. Don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

 

[jsmoke]

A small piece of me just died. Don’t know whether to laugh or cry.

Hopefully it can brought back to life.

 

[Werewolf]

I agree it is quite defeatist. I think it's the fact that tax payers are funding the research in the universities and little is actually of any benefit so it seems hence why I wondered what actually goes on.

No it's because "cancer" isn't one thing, that alone shows how little "research" you've done on the area.

For example they've found out the chance of getting some cancers is directly related to viral infections, and have produced vaccines that mean that you can be protected to from the virus. thus massively reducing the chance of getting the cancer.*
They've found out that certain genetic sequences mean you're more likely to get other cancers (like breast cancer), so can now test for those genes and offer options such as more frequent testing, or if it's one of the really bad ones (IIRC there is one sequence that means your chance of getting it is 30-50%) you can have surgery before it develops as a preventative.
They've found out that certain treatments are good for some cancers, but not for others.
They've found out new and improved ways of targeting cancerous cells so that if you've got something like a brain cancers they have a much better chance of dealing with it, without killing you, or doing major collateral damage due to reductions in the need for surgery, or more precise radiation treatments.
They've found ways to reduce the side effects of the medications they use for cancer treatments.
They've found more precise dosages for those medications, and are still in the process of learning how to personalise the treatments so that it's not just "it's this cancer, in this size, and the patient is an adult male who weighs 75kg".

Cancer is a catch all term that describes a general malfunction of the cells, there are hundreds, if not thousands of types and they all differ at least as much as they are similar, and the tissues they are found in makes a big difference to how they can be treated (you can fairly easily remove some with surgery and have little chance of reoccurance, in others surgery is not an option).


*IIRC the HPV virus which massively increases the chance of cervical cancer, but for it to work they've got to give it to girls before they become sexually active, which leads to idiots who object because it's sexualising girls or going to lead to them having sex before they're married or something.

 

[dowie]

But in science, what's left to research, are the majority of papers released token gestures or are they all furthering science in some way.

There is plenty left to reasearch, it’s a bit dubious to suggest otherwise tbh...

There is a separate point that perhaps is getting muddled in here - yes there is plenty of research that goes no where and some that isn’t much use. Various PhDs won’t be read by many more people than the supervisor(s) and the viva examiners. Though they can be seen as training for a research role and there have likely been some publications made along the way.

There are fewer post doc positions than PhD grads, there are fewer lecturer positions etc..

As someone pointed out you still need some people to look at things that might go no where. You’ve also got just dodgy subject areas and/or people who churn out flawed research. Not just the critical race theory, fat studies types etc... but there has been a replication crisis in psychology and social sciences for example... lots of people misusing statistical techniques they don’t understand and just treat as some black box test where they input the data into some software they learned to use by rote... Likewise burying/not reporting bad results, failed studies etc... (issue in the pharma industry), p hacking is another stats issue though sometimes perhaps done deliberately by unethical researchers rather than naive ones.

See also the French quack who’s “research” on a small sample size caused the Trump hydroxychloroquine claims. He’s got a history of dodgy claims yet he’s a researcher with credentials.

 

[SexyGreyFox]

Just remember folks, the OP is a conspiracy theorist so you're wasting your time.