Ben Yeoh Chats Michael Nielsen: metascience, how to improve science, open science, and decentralisation
Michael Nielsen is a scientist at the Astera Institute. He helped pioneer quantum computing and the modern open science movement. He is a leading thinker on the topic of meta science and how to improve science, in particular, the social processes of science. His latest co-authored work is ‘A Vision of metascience: An engine of improvement for the social processes of Science’ co-authored with Kanjun Qiu . His website notebook is here, with further links to his books including on quantum, memory systems, deep learning, open science and the future of matter.
I ask: What is the most important question in science or meta science we should be seeking to understand at the moment ?
We discuss his vision for what a metascience ecosystem could be; what progress could be and ideas for improving the the culture of science and social processes.
We imagine what an alien might think about our social processes and discuss failure audits, high variance funding and whether organisations really fund ‘high risk’ projects if not that many fail, and how we might measure this.
We discuss how these ideas might not work and be wrong; the difficulty of (the lack of) language for new forming fields; how an interdisciplinary institute might work.
The possible importance of serendipity and agglomeration effects; what to do about attracting outsiders, and funding unusual ideas.
We touch on the stories of Einstein, Katalin Kariko (mRNA) and Doug Prasher (molecular biologist turned van driver) and what they might tell us.
We discuss how metascience can be treated as a research field and also as an entrepreneurial discipline.
We discuss how decentralisation may help. How new institutions may help. The challenges funders face in wanting to wait until ideas become clearer.
We discuss the opportunity that developing nations such as Indonesia might have.
We chat about rationality and critical rationality.
Michael gives some insights into how AI art might be used and how we might never master certain languages, like the languages of early computing.
We end on some thoughts Michael might give his younger self:
The one thing I wish I'd understood much earlier is the extent to which there's kind of an asymmetry in what you see, which is you're always tempted not to make a jump because you see very clearly what you're giving up and you don't see very clearly what it is you're going to gain. So almost all of the interesting opportunities on the other side of that are opaque to you now. You have a very limited kind of a vision into them. You can get around it a little bit by chatting with people who maybe are doing something similar, but it's so much more limited. And yet I know when reasoning about it, I want to treat them like my views of the two are somehow parallel but they're just not.