> People get lucky, then try to rationalize the past with a skill narrative. Then they soak up all the grants.
They have to put themselves in the situation to get lucky first. This person got a graduate education, and was competent enough to be selected to be doing research in what is likely a multimillion dollar lab owned by an institution, then she had the knowledge and ability to notice and be able to identify what had "accidentally" happened with a micro-organism that we barely understand.
Luck was the smallest part of this discovery. I would say that the grant money is well spent funding someone so "lucky".
Everyone in science works hard. Only a few get lucky. People get scooped every day.
Source: spent years looking hard for hibernation promotion factor in P. aeruginosa ribosomes via cryo-EM. Got a PhD and worked a whole lot of 16 hour days. Never got lucky.
I can understand why, it's clearly possible. Just look at the galaxies moving away from us faster than the speed of light. Anything is possible, if you work out the magic.
If this story were at all true, then you know very well that not everyone in science works hard. In my graduate cohort, those who did the sets first year, set themselves into research, and worked hard graduated. Those who did not left with a masters, although many found success in other fields. It was quite clearly delineated.
I'm talking about at the PI level. And yes of course a few people don't work hard, but the overwhelming majority do not differentiate themselves by how hard they work, is the point I'm trying to make. Your average PI has the skill set to take advantage of getting lucky.
Not sure what you're insinuating about the story not being true, would you like to see maps?
> People get lucky, then try to rationalize the past with a skill narrative.
Aka "fundamental attribution error" - overemphasizing internal or personal factors (such as skill or ability) while underemphasizing external or situational factors (such as luck or opportunity) when explaining someone's success or behavior. Fun fact: This bias has a tendency to leave stock traders bankrupt.
I agree with this - but there's far more prepared minds than serendipity, and I think the mistake we make is assuming people can control that serendipity aspect to produce repeat performances.
