A small quote from a recent NYtimes article had me thinking.
The article asks why so many of Darwin's breakthroughs took so long for other scientists to understand.
"One of Darwin’s advantages was that he did not have to write grant proposals or publish 15 articles a year. He thought deeply about every detail of his theory for more than 20 years before publishing “The Origin of Species” in 1859, and for 12 years more before its sequel, “The Descent of Man,” which explored how his theory applied to people."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/science/10evolution.html
Do you think the pressure we have to publish actually diminishes the creation of new knowledge? The reason I ask is because I personally have a number of smaller research pieces out there but the primary thing I want to do is write about larger issues and connections. What do you think?
"One of Darwin’s advantages was that he did not have to write grant proposals or publish 15 articles a year. He thought deeply about every detail of his theory for more than 20 years before publishing “The Origin of Species” in 1859, and for 12 years more before its sequel, “The Descent of Man,” which explored how his theory applied to people."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/10/science/10evolution.html
Do you think the pressure we have to publish actually diminishes the creation of new knowledge? The reason I ask is because I personally have a number of smaller research pieces out there but the primary thing I want to do is write about larger issues and connections. What do you think?