Wow, I didn't know about him! I remember I was very suprised to hear about the elitism in high science circles, and how Nobel prize winners actually have teams behind them etc. etc. It's inspiring to see this story!
Thank you so much - It's true that the internal world of high science, with its pressures, teamwork, and often elitism, can be surprising from the outside. Ramakrishnan's success story is particularly compelling because he navigated that world without necessarily fitting the standard mold, showing what persistence and great ideas can achieve.
Well, this is quite a fascinating topic. I finally had a chance to sit down and watch the videos. One things I find salient are the endless compromises of evolution. Mother Nature seems to generally aim for efficiency above all else.
Contemplating longevity, it occurs to me that quality of life has greater value than longevity. Who wants to extend misery? And immortality? Living long enough to see the end of the universe itself? Or at least long enough to watch the sun expand into a red giant and swallow the Earth?
And what would one do with all that extra time? I suppose one could get around to accomplishing a lifelong dream or two, or maybe even five. Yet I can't help but wonder if an extended lifespan might also reduce motivation. After all, if we have plenty of time, what's the rush?
Of course, the examination of the mechanisms of life are most interesting, in and of themselves, a query perhaps worth pursuing for it's own sake.
I agree, the concept of evolutionary compromises is fascinating – nature often seems to prioritize 'good enough' for survival and reproduction over perfect longevity. Your point about quality of life versus mere length is absolutely crucial; it's perhaps the central question in longevity discussions. And I definitely share your appreciation for understanding life's mechanisms simply for the wonder of it – that drive for knowledge is at the heart of fundamental science.
I think I would certainly be focused on some of those life dreams... maybe not in a rush, but pursue them anyway!
Wonderful! Venki Ramakrishnan, clearly a scientist who has the need for Cognition (NFC) plus the Will to Think(WTT)and another core element -an absolute Love for learning (LFL), a strengthening sustenance to fed him during his intellectual loneliness to pursue his interests. As you say, there is joy in reading his books, in being enlightened walking through a "a pitch-dark cathedral and discovering that the architecture defies Euclidean logic”. The quote you cite to begin is precisely how I’ve been mentoring parents for 40+ years to engage their young children in science. I tell them, all those great scientists didn't have their own finished theories that we insist children learn by rote today. It is one reason those scientists freely experimented in their limited knowledge, with a freedom of exploration. And ,thereby discovered what we now insist students think about it , without the delightful process of discovery. What often occurs as parents learn along with their children ,as they engage In a exploratory, and experiential process of science together, is that Both ponder what they SEE, instead of being told WHAT to see. In this way, they are often surprised to experience joy in scientific learning, for many parents, for the first time. As children learn to think their way to explanations that work for them, they know what is known, and yet remain open to testing their personal knowing against what is 'proven theory". As we know, science is replete with 'proof of theory' that has been required to adapt to new information, discovered often enough by those who were profoundly raised how to Just Think. ~
Your description of Ramakrishnan through NFC, WTT, and LFL is brilliant – and yes, that Love for Learning feels like the fuel that keeps scientists going through those tough times.
I was so struck by your description of mentoring parents and children. Getting them to ponder what they see instead of just accepting what they're told captures the essence of genuine scientific engagement. The sheer joy of the discovery process over rote learning – sounds like exactly what science education should be.
Thank you for reminding us of the importance of how we learn, not just what we learn.
The story of Venki Ramakrishnan bears striking similarities to that of Katalin Karikó, another Nobel Prize winner who was also an outsider in her field. Both of them faced significant challenges and systemic barriers in their respective journeys, yet they persevered and ultimately made transformative contributions to science.
Katalin Karikó worked in a field—mRNA research—that was largely ignored and considered too speculative or impractical. Despite facing repeated rejections and professional setbacks, she continued to pursue her vision. Unlike Venki, who worked largely independently, Karikó found a collaborator in Drew Weissman, whose partnership was instrumental in advancing her work. However, the essence of their stories remains the same: both succeeded by persisting in areas where others saw little value, demonstrating that being an outsider doesn’t preclude success if you find your niche.
This comparison highlights a critical truth: you can succeed even as an outsider, but it often requires finding a unique area of focus—a niche that others have overlooked or dismissed. Yet, this path is rarely easy. Most people gravitate toward areas that promise quick fame, immediate recognition, and easier access to collaborators, mentors, and funding. This tendency reflects a broader issue within academia and the scientific community, where the focus is often on incremental discoveries that yield immediate rewards rather than on bold, high-risk research that could create transformative impact. The problem is that high-risk research carries a significant chance of failure, and failure is rarely celebrated in science. This cultural bias toward "safe" research slows the pace of scientific advancement.
In a previous comment, I discussed how the lack of recognition for persistence and the stigma around failure hinder progress. If we truly want to accelerate scientific discovery, we need to rethink how we value, fund, and celebrate research.
1. How do we restructure funding systems to prioritize transformative discoveries over incremental ones?
- Current funding models often reward projects that promise quick, tangible results. How can we create systems that encourage exploratory, high-risk research, even if it comes with a higher likelihood of failure? How do we support researchers willing to take on these challenges?
2. How many groundbreaking ideas or discoveries, like those of Venki and Katalin, are being ignored today because their proponents are outsiders?
- Venki and Katalin succeeded despite systemic barriers, but how many other important discoveries are left unexplored or overlooked because the scientists behind them lack access to resources, networks, or recognition? How can we build mechanisms to identify and support such researchers?
3. Did Venki and Katalin succeed because they were outsiders working in non-glamorous, high-persistence fields? How can we encourage young scientists to take on these kinds of challenges?
- Both Venki and Katalin worked on problems that required years of persistence and were considered unglamorous by the broader scientific community. How do we create a culture that values these efforts? How do we celebrate successes and even failures in such fields to inspire more young scientists to tackle complex, overlooked problems? After all, real progress often lies in these challenging areas, and we must ensure that science doesn’t only advance "one funeral at a time."
4. Did Venki succeed because of his interdisciplinary background?
- Venki came to biology from a physics background, which gave him a unique perspective and approach to solving the ribosome problem. He was a "π-shaped" scientist, combining deep expertise in multiple fields, while many others in the field were "T-shaped," with their expertise rooted solely in biology. Did this interdisciplinary approach give him an edge in tackling challenges that others found insurmountable? How can we encourage more scientists to embrace interdisciplinary learning and leverage diverse skill sets to solve complex problems?
Venki Ramakrishnan and Katalin Karikó remind us that true scientific progress often comes from those who dare to challenge the status quo, work on problems others avoid, and persist in the face of systemic barriers. Their stories underscore the importance of creating an ecosystem that values curiosity, persistence, and bold thinking. By addressing the questions above and reforming the way we fund, celebrate, and support science, we can ensure that more "outsiders" have the opportunity to make transformative contributions to human knowledge.
Another question: Would Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman have received the Nobel Prize if COVID-19 had not happened, or would their discovery have remained unrecognized until far in the future, waiting for a pivotal event to draw attention to this technology?
Thank you for drawing the incredibly powerful parallel between Venki Ramakrishnan and Katalin Karikó. You are absolutely right, their journeys highlight a crucial pattern.
Your questions about funding structures, recognizing overlooked potential, and fostering persistence in 'unglamorous' fields get right to the heart of the challenges facing the scientific community. It is a real tension. How do we balance the need for measurable outcomes with the support required for high-risk, potentially transformative research that might take years to bear fruit, if ever? Stories like theirs suggest we need more diverse funding models.
The question of how many Karikós or Venkis are out there, struggling for recognition, is important and sobering. It really underscores the need to actively seek out and support talent beyond the traditional power structures.
I strongly agree about the importance of interdisciplinarity as we have discussed before. Venki bringing a physicist's mindset to a biological problem may have been significant, much like Karikó's deep mRNA expertise intersected with Weissman's immunology. We absolutely need more 'π-shaped' scientists.
Your final question about timing and the Nobel for Karikó/Weissman is thought provoking. While COVID-19 was the catalyst for rapid deployment and global recognition, despite their groundbreaking science which was developed over decades. It highlights how fundamental research can sometimes wait years for its 'moment,' though one hopes recognition wouldn't always require a global crisis! But alas, sometimes that is what is needed?
Ultimately, as you say, these stories challenge us to think critically about how we nurture science, valuing the process, embracing diverse approaches, and creating space for those persistent outsiders who might just hold the keys to the next big breakthrough.
Is what we see a recurring pattern in science, where transformative discoveries are often ignored or dismissed until external recognition, an external event like COVID, brings them to light? Or are these rare exceptions that gain visibility only because of such events?
This raises another critical question: Should we create a prize for the "biggest failure" in attempting transformative work? Such a prize could encourage scientists to take greater risks by recognizing and financially rewarding bold efforts, even when they fail. This would shift the focus from fearing failure to valuing the discovery process, normalizing risk-taking, and emphasizing that even failed attempts can lay the groundwork for future breakthroughs.
Implementing it would raise some fascinating questions, though. How would one objectively judge the 'biggest' or 'most valuable' failure? What criteria would ensure it rewards rigorous, well-founded attempts rather than just poorly planned ones? Perhaps framing it slightly differently, like a "Bold Pursuit Prize" or "Ambitious Attempt Award," might capture the spirit while navigating some of the complexities?
Regardless, it's exactly this kind of creative thinking about incentives and culture that's needed if we want to foster more groundbreaking science. Thanks for the thought-provoking idea!
Agreed. The details need to be worked out. For example, one award in every major field, how do we decide what is the biggest failure, and several other questions?
Inspiring deep dive into Venki Ramakrishnan and his process.
Would be great if there any wikipedia editors subscribing to the 1% rule who could add a reference link to his wikipedia entry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venki_Ramakrishnan
Thanks for that Scott, what a kind suggestion.
Wow, I didn't know about him! I remember I was very suprised to hear about the elitism in high science circles, and how Nobel prize winners actually have teams behind them etc. etc. It's inspiring to see this story!
Thank you so much - It's true that the internal world of high science, with its pressures, teamwork, and often elitism, can be surprising from the outside. Ramakrishnan's success story is particularly compelling because he navigated that world without necessarily fitting the standard mold, showing what persistence and great ideas can achieve.
Great piece
Well, this is quite a fascinating topic. I finally had a chance to sit down and watch the videos. One things I find salient are the endless compromises of evolution. Mother Nature seems to generally aim for efficiency above all else.
Contemplating longevity, it occurs to me that quality of life has greater value than longevity. Who wants to extend misery? And immortality? Living long enough to see the end of the universe itself? Or at least long enough to watch the sun expand into a red giant and swallow the Earth?
And what would one do with all that extra time? I suppose one could get around to accomplishing a lifelong dream or two, or maybe even five. Yet I can't help but wonder if an extended lifespan might also reduce motivation. After all, if we have plenty of time, what's the rush?
Of course, the examination of the mechanisms of life are most interesting, in and of themselves, a query perhaps worth pursuing for it's own sake.
I agree, the concept of evolutionary compromises is fascinating – nature often seems to prioritize 'good enough' for survival and reproduction over perfect longevity. Your point about quality of life versus mere length is absolutely crucial; it's perhaps the central question in longevity discussions. And I definitely share your appreciation for understanding life's mechanisms simply for the wonder of it – that drive for knowledge is at the heart of fundamental science.
I think I would certainly be focused on some of those life dreams... maybe not in a rush, but pursue them anyway!
Wonderful! Venki Ramakrishnan, clearly a scientist who has the need for Cognition (NFC) plus the Will to Think(WTT)and another core element -an absolute Love for learning (LFL), a strengthening sustenance to fed him during his intellectual loneliness to pursue his interests. As you say, there is joy in reading his books, in being enlightened walking through a "a pitch-dark cathedral and discovering that the architecture defies Euclidean logic”. The quote you cite to begin is precisely how I’ve been mentoring parents for 40+ years to engage their young children in science. I tell them, all those great scientists didn't have their own finished theories that we insist children learn by rote today. It is one reason those scientists freely experimented in their limited knowledge, with a freedom of exploration. And ,thereby discovered what we now insist students think about it , without the delightful process of discovery. What often occurs as parents learn along with their children ,as they engage In a exploratory, and experiential process of science together, is that Both ponder what they SEE, instead of being told WHAT to see. In this way, they are often surprised to experience joy in scientific learning, for many parents, for the first time. As children learn to think their way to explanations that work for them, they know what is known, and yet remain open to testing their personal knowing against what is 'proven theory". As we know, science is replete with 'proof of theory' that has been required to adapt to new information, discovered often enough by those who were profoundly raised how to Just Think. ~
Your description of Ramakrishnan through NFC, WTT, and LFL is brilliant – and yes, that Love for Learning feels like the fuel that keeps scientists going through those tough times.
I was so struck by your description of mentoring parents and children. Getting them to ponder what they see instead of just accepting what they're told captures the essence of genuine scientific engagement. The sheer joy of the discovery process over rote learning – sounds like exactly what science education should be.
Thank you for reminding us of the importance of how we learn, not just what we learn.
The story of Venki Ramakrishnan bears striking similarities to that of Katalin Karikó, another Nobel Prize winner who was also an outsider in her field. Both of them faced significant challenges and systemic barriers in their respective journeys, yet they persevered and ultimately made transformative contributions to science.
Katalin Karikó worked in a field—mRNA research—that was largely ignored and considered too speculative or impractical. Despite facing repeated rejections and professional setbacks, she continued to pursue her vision. Unlike Venki, who worked largely independently, Karikó found a collaborator in Drew Weissman, whose partnership was instrumental in advancing her work. However, the essence of their stories remains the same: both succeeded by persisting in areas where others saw little value, demonstrating that being an outsider doesn’t preclude success if you find your niche.
This comparison highlights a critical truth: you can succeed even as an outsider, but it often requires finding a unique area of focus—a niche that others have overlooked or dismissed. Yet, this path is rarely easy. Most people gravitate toward areas that promise quick fame, immediate recognition, and easier access to collaborators, mentors, and funding. This tendency reflects a broader issue within academia and the scientific community, where the focus is often on incremental discoveries that yield immediate rewards rather than on bold, high-risk research that could create transformative impact. The problem is that high-risk research carries a significant chance of failure, and failure is rarely celebrated in science. This cultural bias toward "safe" research slows the pace of scientific advancement.
In a previous comment, I discussed how the lack of recognition for persistence and the stigma around failure hinder progress. If we truly want to accelerate scientific discovery, we need to rethink how we value, fund, and celebrate research.
1. How do we restructure funding systems to prioritize transformative discoveries over incremental ones?
- Current funding models often reward projects that promise quick, tangible results. How can we create systems that encourage exploratory, high-risk research, even if it comes with a higher likelihood of failure? How do we support researchers willing to take on these challenges?
2. How many groundbreaking ideas or discoveries, like those of Venki and Katalin, are being ignored today because their proponents are outsiders?
- Venki and Katalin succeeded despite systemic barriers, but how many other important discoveries are left unexplored or overlooked because the scientists behind them lack access to resources, networks, or recognition? How can we build mechanisms to identify and support such researchers?
3. Did Venki and Katalin succeed because they were outsiders working in non-glamorous, high-persistence fields? How can we encourage young scientists to take on these kinds of challenges?
- Both Venki and Katalin worked on problems that required years of persistence and were considered unglamorous by the broader scientific community. How do we create a culture that values these efforts? How do we celebrate successes and even failures in such fields to inspire more young scientists to tackle complex, overlooked problems? After all, real progress often lies in these challenging areas, and we must ensure that science doesn’t only advance "one funeral at a time."
4. Did Venki succeed because of his interdisciplinary background?
- Venki came to biology from a physics background, which gave him a unique perspective and approach to solving the ribosome problem. He was a "π-shaped" scientist, combining deep expertise in multiple fields, while many others in the field were "T-shaped," with their expertise rooted solely in biology. Did this interdisciplinary approach give him an edge in tackling challenges that others found insurmountable? How can we encourage more scientists to embrace interdisciplinary learning and leverage diverse skill sets to solve complex problems?
Venki Ramakrishnan and Katalin Karikó remind us that true scientific progress often comes from those who dare to challenge the status quo, work on problems others avoid, and persist in the face of systemic barriers. Their stories underscore the importance of creating an ecosystem that values curiosity, persistence, and bold thinking. By addressing the questions above and reforming the way we fund, celebrate, and support science, we can ensure that more "outsiders" have the opportunity to make transformative contributions to human knowledge.
Another question: Would Katalin Karikó and Drew Weissman have received the Nobel Prize if COVID-19 had not happened, or would their discovery have remained unrecognized until far in the future, waiting for a pivotal event to draw attention to this technology?
Thank you for drawing the incredibly powerful parallel between Venki Ramakrishnan and Katalin Karikó. You are absolutely right, their journeys highlight a crucial pattern.
Your questions about funding structures, recognizing overlooked potential, and fostering persistence in 'unglamorous' fields get right to the heart of the challenges facing the scientific community. It is a real tension. How do we balance the need for measurable outcomes with the support required for high-risk, potentially transformative research that might take years to bear fruit, if ever? Stories like theirs suggest we need more diverse funding models.
The question of how many Karikós or Venkis are out there, struggling for recognition, is important and sobering. It really underscores the need to actively seek out and support talent beyond the traditional power structures.
I strongly agree about the importance of interdisciplinarity as we have discussed before. Venki bringing a physicist's mindset to a biological problem may have been significant, much like Karikó's deep mRNA expertise intersected with Weissman's immunology. We absolutely need more 'π-shaped' scientists.
Your final question about timing and the Nobel for Karikó/Weissman is thought provoking. While COVID-19 was the catalyst for rapid deployment and global recognition, despite their groundbreaking science which was developed over decades. It highlights how fundamental research can sometimes wait years for its 'moment,' though one hopes recognition wouldn't always require a global crisis! But alas, sometimes that is what is needed?
Ultimately, as you say, these stories challenge us to think critically about how we nurture science, valuing the process, embracing diverse approaches, and creating space for those persistent outsiders who might just hold the keys to the next big breakthrough.
Who is next?
I've been reflecting on this further:
Is what we see a recurring pattern in science, where transformative discoveries are often ignored or dismissed until external recognition, an external event like COVID, brings them to light? Or are these rare exceptions that gain visibility only because of such events?
This raises another critical question: Should we create a prize for the "biggest failure" in attempting transformative work? Such a prize could encourage scientists to take greater risks by recognizing and financially rewarding bold efforts, even when they fail. This would shift the focus from fearing failure to valuing the discovery process, normalizing risk-taking, and emphasizing that even failed attempts can lay the groundwork for future breakthroughs.
Brilliant idea.
Implementing it would raise some fascinating questions, though. How would one objectively judge the 'biggest' or 'most valuable' failure? What criteria would ensure it rewards rigorous, well-founded attempts rather than just poorly planned ones? Perhaps framing it slightly differently, like a "Bold Pursuit Prize" or "Ambitious Attempt Award," might capture the spirit while navigating some of the complexities?
Regardless, it's exactly this kind of creative thinking about incentives and culture that's needed if we want to foster more groundbreaking science. Thanks for the thought-provoking idea!
Agreed. The details need to be worked out. For example, one award in every major field, how do we decide what is the biggest failure, and several other questions?