I was asked to keep this confidential

Sabine Hossenfelder shares a confidential email criticizing the state of scientific research, particularly in the foundations of physics. The email highlights concerns about the employment bubble in academia, where research is often driven by funding rather than meaningful outcomes. It criticizes the inefficacy of certain high-budget experiments, like the DUNE project, in providing real answers. Hossenfelder expresses disillusionment with the academic system's lack of integrity and transparency, warning of an impending crisis as public trust erodes. She also introduces Incog, a service that helps protect personal data from being sold to data brokers.

• The speaker expresses concerns about the integrity and reliability of scientific research, particularly in the field of physics.
• There is a perceived disconnect between the ideal of scientific self-correction and the reality of persistent publication of nonsensical work.
• The speaker received an email that sheds light on the underlying issues within the scientific community, emphasizing the precarious nature of employment and the ethical dilemmas faced by researchers.

"I want to read you an email that I was asked to keep confidential. I've been thinking about this for a long time, but I now believe that reading it to you will go some way to explain why I'm worried about the status of scientific research generally, but especially in the foundations of physics."

• The speaker is motivated to share a confidential email to highlight their concerns about the integrity of scientific research, particularly in physics.

"In it, I explained how I lost trust in scientific self-correction after I realized how much of what's published in the foundations of physics is nonsense and continues to be nonsense."

• The speaker has lost faith in the process of scientific self-correction, as they have observed a continuous publication of nonsensical work in physics.

• The email received by the speaker discusses the ramifications of publishing critical papers on the scientific community.
• It raises ethical questions about the balance between personal academic gain and the broader impact on the scientific community.
• The email highlights the potential negative consequences for researchers who rely on existing models and collaborations for employment and visa purposes.

"First of all, congratulations on a nice paper. If you wanted to attract attention, you managed to do this. Actually, I'd like to ask you next time think not only about short-term personal benefits but about the community in general."

• The email acknowledges the speaker's successful publication but urges them to consider the broader implications for the scientific community beyond personal recognition.

"What are all these BSM model Builders with exaggerated self-opinion going to do afterwards? What about experimentalists who survive hiding inside big multi-v collaborations? Can you offer them all any decent employment alternatives?"

• The email questions the future prospects of researchers who are dependent on current models and collaborations, highlighting the potential vulnerability of their employment situation.

• The email reveals a candid admission of the existence of a scientific "bubble" that sustains many researchers and their families.
• There is an acknowledgment of the ethical trade-offs made by researchers who continue to work within this system.
• The email suggests that while the work may be scientifically dubious, it provides necessary financial and professional support for many individuals.

"If you like, yes, what we created is a bubble, but it has helped thousands of those guys and their families not to die from hunger."

• The email admits to the existence of a scientific "bubble" that, despite its flaws, provides crucial support for researchers and their families.

"We all do the same stuff and have some trade secrets. For example, I'm one of the authors of the so-called model; pretty useless stuff, old refurbished with a couple of new blows and whistles, but if people buy this and it helps them to get grants, who cares?"

• The email reveals the pragmatic approach taken by some researchers, acknowledging that while their work may lack substantive value, it is a means to secure funding and sustain their careers.

• Public Perception and Funding: The public often funds scientific research without understanding the complexities involved, leading to a focus on projects that are more about hype than substance.
• Impact of Research Papers: High-impact papers can shift funding priorities, but systemic changes in research quality criteria are unlikely to be implemented.
• Academic System Flaws: The academic system often retains compliant individuals while losing independent thinkers, which is a broader societal issue beyond just the High Energy Physics (HEP) community.
• Career Paths in Academia: While some leave academia for better opportunities, those who stay often do so for the comfort and stability it provides.

"They have zero idea that Elementary particles exist they pay us from public funds not from their own and basically pay for something cool some new crazy hype which they need either to include into their spending reports or in case of universities to attract students."

• This quote highlights the disconnect between public understanding and the complexities of scientific research, emphasizing that funding often prioritizes hype over substance.

"Your paper made a lot of noise and most likely will affect redistribution of Hep funds towards other areas but I doubt that you'll be able to suggest and Implement any organizational changes also any changes of quality criteria which would demonstrate uselessness of somebody's work will have zero chance of approval."

• The quote indicates that while impactful research can influence funding distribution, systemic changes to improve research quality or challenge the status quo are unlikely to occur.

"My heart is bleeding when I regularly see brightened intelligent persons with independent ways of thinking leaving Academia or getting kicked out whereas obedient idiots remain but there's nothing can do."

• This reflects the frustration with the academic system that often drives away innovative thinkers while retaining those who conform, pointing to a broader issue within societal structures.

• Taxpayer Skepticism: There is a growing expectation from taxpayers for tangible results from scientific funding, leading to potential scrutiny of research outcomes.
• Limitations of Experiments: Large-scale experiments, like the DUNE project, may not deliver on their grand promises, particularly in explaining fundamental questions about the universe.

"I don't think that taxpayers are stupid we're not paying physicists for crazy new hype we want to see results and soon taxpayers will start asking some tough questions."

• This quote underscores the sentiment that taxpayers are becoming more discerning and will demand accountability and results from scientific research.

"So they told you that this Dune experiment that's being built from some billions dollars of public funds at firb will tell us why we exist or why the universe didn't disappear I regret to inform you that it won't do any such thing."

• The quote highlights the skepticism about the promises made by large-scale scientific projects, suggesting that they may not fulfill their stated objectives, particularly in answering existential questions.

• The speaker argues that the matter-antimatter symmetry issue is a fabricated problem used to justify funding for research that may not deliver on its promises.
• There is skepticism about the genuine understanding of CP violation in the neutrino sector among physicists.
• The speaker suggests that some research projects, such as those measuring neutrino properties, primarily serve to maintain employment for physicists rather than contribute meaningful scientific advancements.
• The speaker criticizes the U.S. government's significant financial investments in projects like the new particle collider at Brookhaven, questioning the practical benefits of such research.
• The speaker expresses concern over the perceived lack of accountability and transparency in the justification of large-scale physics projects.
• The speaker believes that the only solution to the problem of "useless research" is to cease funding these projects.

"The matter-antimatter symmetry that Dune is supposedly shedding light on is a pseudo problem. It's a story that physicists have made up that they're now selling to the public because they think that once they have the money, it doesn't really matter if they deliver what they promised."

• The speaker claims that the matter-antimatter symmetry issue is an artificially created problem, suggesting a disconnect between funding motivations and actual scientific progress.

"It'll measure some properties of neutrinos. What's that good for? It's good for keeping particle physicists employed because some of them have families, and it would be unfair if they had to do something useful for their income, wouldn't it?"

• The speaker cynically suggests that some research is conducted more for maintaining employment within the field rather than advancing scientific understanding.

"Has anyone even noticed that the US government spent another 2 billion dollars or so on a new particle collider at Brookhaven? Its purpose is to improve measurements of the quark and glue and distribution inside of heavy irons. What are they good for? You're not supposed to ask."

• The speaker questions the value and transparency of substantial government investments in particle physics research, implying a lack of clear benefit.

"That particle physicists have created these bubbles of useless research is not a problem that can be fixed from inside the community. The only way to fix the problem is to stop paying them."

• The speaker believes that the issue of unproductive research within particle physics is systemic and can only be resolved by cutting funding.

• The speaker expresses discontent and disillusionment with the current state of academic research in particle physics.
• There is a strong sense of frustration with the perceived condescension towards taxpayers who fund academic research.
• The speaker feels alienated from the research community, describing it as "rotten to the core."
• The speaker calls out physicists who are aware of the issues but choose to remain silent, suggesting a culture of complicity and fear of dissent.

"I've read this email dozens of times, and each time I'm stunned by how condescending it is to all the people who do honest work and whose taxes pay for academic jobs."

• The speaker is frustrated by the perceived arrogance within the research community towards taxpayers and those outside academia.

"It makes me sick, and it makes me glad that I no longer have anything to do with this so-called research area that's rotten to the core."

• The speaker expresses a strong sense of disillusionment and relief at having distanced themselves from what they perceive as a corrupt research environment.

"If you are one of the many physicists who know full well what nonsense research I'm talking about but you still keep your mouth shut, if you're one of those who laugh about me because no one believes what I'm saying..."

• The speaker criticizes physicists who are aware of the issues but choose to remain silent, suggesting a lack of integrity and courage within the community.

• The speaker addresses false claims about their professional activities, specifically a fabricated story about being invited to speak at CERN but being afraid to attend.
• They emphasize the importance of truthfulness and integrity, accusing critics of lacking these qualities.
• The notion that misinformation can damage reputations and undermine scientific credibility is highlighted.
• The speaker stresses the inevitability of truth prevailing over falsehoods, akin to economic bubbles bursting.

"If you're one of those who spread lies about me like that story that I was invited to give a talk at CERN but was afraid to go, did you make that up? I hope it was amusing but Jesus use your brain."

• This quote underscores the speaker's frustration with false narratives and calls for critical thinking among those spreading misinformation.

"Your problem isn't that I'm making noise your problem is that you're lying to the people who pay you your problem is that you're cowards without a shred of scientific Integrity your problem is that every bubble eventually bursts."

• The speaker accuses critics of dishonesty and cowardice, predicting that the truth will eventually overcome deceit.

• The speaker discusses how language is moderated on platforms like YouTube, where certain terms are flagged as profanity.
• This leads to adjustments in terminology to avoid censorship and maintain the channel's professionalism.

"By the way the reason I now call it nonsense research and no longer research is that YouTube flexs the letter as profanity and we don't want to be profane on this channel that would be ABS lutely terrible."

• The speaker explains the necessity of altering language to comply with platform policies, highlighting the impact of digital censorship.

• The speaker expresses concerns about privacy and the risks associated with personal data being collected and sold by websites.
• They advocate for using services like Incog to automate the removal of personal information from databases, emphasizing the importance of protecting privacy.
• The speaker shares their positive experience with Incog, noting the time saved and the peace of mind gained from using the service.

"There are many reasons why you might not want other people to get your private information and yes I have reasons this is why I signed up to incog who've been sponsoring this video."

• This quote introduces the speaker's rationale for prioritizing privacy and their decision to use Incog for data protection.

"Each time you open a website it'll try to collect data about who you are and where you are and what other websites you've visited."

• The speaker highlights the pervasive nature of data collection online, underscoring the need for proactive privacy measures.

"Incog automates the process of getting you out of those databases you sign up and they'll contact the big Sinners request that your personal details be removed."

• The speaker describes how Incog functions to protect personal information, emphasizing its convenience and effectiveness.

"I'm glad there's now a simple solution to stop unfriendly people doing nasty things with my personal details incog is super easy to use you sign up give them the information they should look for and they go to work like within a minute basically."

• The speaker expresses satisfaction with Incog's service, noting its user-friendly design and the quick results it delivers.