I'd love to hear from a mature scientist familiar with this advice from the outset of their career tell us how the reality lined up, things like '“A scientist will normally have contractual obligations to his employer and has always a special and unconditionally binding obligation to the truth.”' seem a little idealistic in a contemporary setting?
It's very apt. The only issue I take is the point to work on something important rather than something interesting. Sure, you can find interest at sufficient depth in nearly any topic if you're a good scientist, but you'll miss out on the truly groundbreaking stuff--the long tail stuff.
For example (obvs YMWV), when I started graduate school in the mid-aughts, my interest was piqued by a little studied RNA modification called pseudouridine. I actually had another prof in the department ask why I didn't want to work on something "important". Turns out it was pretty important for improving human health and reducing disease in unforeseen ways. If I hadn't followed my gut interest that said "hmm?" when I first learned about it, I would have missed out on something grand.
Maybe what I would add is the pursuit of a PhD, IMHO, is a privilege. It's a time to drift and wander around a topic of interest; not a time to bust your ass. It's a time for pious interrogation of the universe. You should not be gunning for money or fame or success, but rather focused on making connections with other scientists to come up with answers to interesting questions about how things work.
So who can spend so many of their prime years possibly not accomplishing anything of value? Someone who is privileged. I am all, all, all for opening up doors to everyone, but the risk is that "getting a PhD" turns into the pursuit in and of itself. We are seeing this now more with people assuming the higher degree is simply the next step after a masters or bachelors degree. It wasn't designed for that.
But with all this being said, I love how humanity evolves and I'm down for enabling anyone who hustles to get ahead. If this is what society thinks a PhD should become, then let's try it out. But people need to make sure they realize the way things used to play out after the degree are no longer the rule but more of the exception.
It's worked out well, but it would have been fine regardless because my personality is tilted toward getting off on learning new shit and connecting disparate dots. My absolute favorite part of science are the tools: learning how to use every tool available one and inventing new ones. Publishing papers is fun, but it's a slog (really for everyone). I much prefer reviewing and editing manuscripts as opposed to writing them and I get to do that now on a plurality of topics.
I'd say science is itself an ideal, like the law, but with application of rigour. The moment you stop seeking trutg, it's no longer science but akin to alchemy or astrology.
But then we get to the slippery slope of lying outright vs "cooking the math" to suit your hypothesis. It's still not clear where the line is drawn.
The only thing that's hard to reconcile for me is advice to "work on something important". That's like asking someone to just get better from depression. If we can all truly agree on what's important and what's not that's half the problem solved right there.
Other issue is that if a problem is important then a lot of folks are already on it. Is it worth everyone's time for one more person to come and compete for the same goal? This only makes sense if you know that you can bring a new perspective to that topic (which unfortunately every scientist believes they do).
