Along the lines of "you can't make this stuff up":

Late last month an independent scientist auctioned off his services as a co-author on eBay, with the promise of helping the highest bidder write a scientific paper for publication.

[...]

The auction began as a bit of fun, admits William A. Tozier, a consultant in Ann Arbor, Mich., who specializes in machine learning and artificial-intelligence research. "I undertook it as a combination of a joke and conceptual art and a bit of an experiment in social networks," he says.

[...]

Although born in jest, the auction quickly took on a serious purpose, says Mr. Tozier. About 50 prospective bidders contacted him by phone or e-mail, many expressing a frustrated desire to conduct research. "It was clear there was this huge suite of complaints that all arose from people wanting to participate and not having an outlet to participate," he says. Some were graduate students or young faculty members who didn't have the time or the gumption to work outside their own specialties. Others were intellectually motivated people employed outside academe who wanted to solve certain research problems.

People saw real value in the service, says Mr. Tozier: "There's this whole constellation of things they could get from it. They could get credentials. They would get the ability to have their questions actually answered."

Here's the saddest thing of all: I was never "thumbing my nose" at the Academe, I was ignoring (and disintermediating) it entirely. And the fellow missed that point completely, it seems.

And yes, you can't make this stuff up, or buy it.

I've already commented (Cf. blog) on how the interview with the Chronicle fellow felt as if it went all awry -- and I was clearly right. His preconceptions, which he disavowed after reading my comments on my blog, turned out to be just as strong as I had suspected.

He just couldn't seem to get the point that I'm not talking about papers, publication, tenure, or anything else having to do with the traditional University-based research process. I'm talking about something else: a community for amateurs. Not wannabes or "ex-academics" or failed grad students and faculty without "gumption" or dilettantes, but rather skilled amateurs who want to do something else.

Intellectuals. Us.

He thought when I said, "This is not aimed at traditional academics," that I meant that they were an excluded reviled minority -- though what I said was that they would just not be the target demographic, and that they would probably not find the community of any interest (until it was too late).

He thought that when I said I was founding "an online community for scientific collaboration," that I meant either a "mentoring" system to pair academics with laymen, or a "wannabe" system for laymen to submit manuscripts to traditional journals -- as if they care. What I told him was that the value of a community for the discussion of projects and results far outweighs the cache of journal refs.

He clearly didn't even understand that when I said there was "a perceived pain" I was using standard marketing jargon to describe a marketable product, not some sort of anguished plea for recognition. Even though I explained the usage.

He really wanted it to be about iconoclasm. But it isn't.

And as for the "meat grinder" business, what I said was: I'm going back to graduate school for my Ph.D. because I hope to be an administrator and start outreach programs to the non-academic community. The meat grinder quip was made by a friend of mine, a much-harried young nanotech researcher at Duke.

Sigh.

At any rate, this little amusement will surely give me the kick in the pants and "gumption" I need to get rolling on my essay. The boy could use some correction.

I wonder if he ended up a mere science reporter, and not a professor, because he didn't listen well....

An entirely different interview, with a nice lady from Science News, is forthcoming in a few weeks. As is my own essay on the experience, and where the project is going.

Best,
Bill