Jim Schwoebel
About
Jim is the CEO of NeuroLex which is focused on making voice computing accessible to everyone. He has experience starting, growing, and scaling seed-stage SaaS startups. He enjoys hard problems, thrives amidst uncertainty, and manages with humility. Below is a poem he wrote for Stories in Science. Learn more about Jim on LinkedIn and Twitter.
A search for truth – experimentation,
Priorities biased by a grant system,
What is science?
Cloaked incentives in capitalism,
Cloaked incentives in capitalism,
Publish or perish – a machination.
“You can’t do good science in a startup,”1
The professor hubris shines through.
How can I pursue good science?
Recognition comes from peer review,
Individual contributions in a mashup.
Timing is everything.
One day tissue engineering is the most important topic.
One day tissue engineering is the most important topic.
When will my work be actualized?
The next it’s deep learning – at times it seems myopic,
The next it’s deep learning – at times it seems myopic,
Like a short-term fling.
Translation in science is slow
Relative to the pace of technology trends.
Relative to the pace of technology trends.
Should I go into industry?
My mind is contemplating directional amends,
My mind is contemplating directional amends,
A sharp attack to my ego.
Fierce competition provokes worry,
So I refocus into a Descartes-like meditation.
What is good enough?2
The science of one great person – isolation,
The science of one great person – isolation,
Can outperform the collaboration of many.3
We must respect the Groupthink Fiefdom,
Transcend the grant-driven priority,
Where should we go from here?
Escape the notion of startup inferiority,
And embrace the individualists, a goal-less wisdom.
Where should we go from here?
Escape the notion of startup inferiority,
And embrace the individualists, a goal-less wisdom.
1 I get ‘told’ this many times – if not directly indirectly through the questions asked by potential scientific collaborators. When startups can fund their scientific initiatives, it is often assumed a priori that there was no peer review. However, this is often not the case because VCs and angels do actually base their financing decisions on due diligence and scientific reviews.
2 Often “good enough” is measured by publications (e.g. 200+), patents (e.g. 30+), grant funding (e.g. $10MM+), or startup exits (e.g. $30MM+). A mixture of these things in today’s world forms the economic basis by which we judge scientific production. But this is contrary to pure science – which in and of itself selects for ideas in an unbiased way.
3 I think many times good ideas aren’t pursued if they are contrary to public opinion. In the same way, many scientists don’t explore contrarian ideas mostly for the sake of saving their reputations. This can limit the questions that they ask.
Metrics
Sessions
[analytify-stats metrics=”ga:sessions” analytics_for=”current” custom_page_id = “”permission_view=””]
Total number of Sessions. A session is the period time a user is actively engaged with the page.
Visitors
[analytify-stats metrics=”ga:visitors” analytics_for=”current” custom_page_id = “”permission_view=””]
Users that have had at least one session within the selected date range. Includes both new and returning users.
Page views
[analytify-stats metrics=”ga:pageviews” analytics_for=”current” custom_page_id = “”permission_view=””]
Pageviews is the total number of time the article was viewed. Repeated views are counted.