Poster Sci-Giraffe — Strengthening the 3 Weaker Legs of Science by Supporting Free Choice of Scientific Roles

A 4x3ft scientific poster from UW-Madison proposing 7 scientific roles (Explorer, Toolmaker, Producer, Guardian, Integrator, Debugger, Teacher) to make science more efficient by supporting free choice beyond the dominant Producer role.

Download the original document (PDF)

Poster Sci-Giraffe — Scientific Roles — PDF (578 KB) — 1-page poster (4x3 ft), Jonah License with CC0 Public Domain

Filename: poster-sci-giraffe-typology-innov-science-free-roles-iv_llol_ppr5_2017m03d14-4x3ft.pdf

WebP preview (384 KB)

— Overview AI-generated by dv_ClaOp46Max_MMv2_2026m04d02 —Start—

Abstract

Poster Sci-Giraffe, originally presented at UW-Madison’s Wisconsin Institute for Discovery in 2017, proposes 7 scientific roles to make science more efficient. The central image is a giraffe silhouette with the roles arranged around it, symbolizing the idea that science currently stands “mostly supported by one strong leg” (the Producer role) while the other legs are weakened by lack of institutional support.

The 7 roles are:

• Explorer — Does what some think is impossible by exploring unknown realms. Think: genetic code.

• Toolmaker — Develops new tools to enable new discoveries. Think: DNA sequencing, microscopes, scientific software.

• Producer — Generates many certain advances by using tools in proven areas. Think: experiments characterizing thousands of genes.

• Guardian — Guards areas, old-school or new, curates all related public knowledge. Think: Scholarpedia with versioned resources. Trains for decades; serves for life.

• Integrator — Draws connections between different disciplines to create a bigger picture. Think: Neo-Darwinian Synthesis.

• Debugger — Tests details of results from new angles to see blind spots. Think: cancer drug effect reproducibility.

• Teacher — Introduces to a new area; keeps introductions, courses, and textbooks updated. Think: Lehninger Biochemistry.

The left column lists how science could be more efficient by properly supporting all roles: avoiding negative results, using meta-analyses, reducing curriculum load, improving grant review quality, improving reproducibility, and winning back public trust. The right column asks provocative questions about why science is organized too inefficiently despite huge successes.

A career-risk indicator shows that emphasizing non-Producer roles (especially Guardian, Integrator, Debugger) carries high career risk because these roles are hard to teach, learn, fund, and may compromise careers under current incentive structures.

Key Concepts at a Glance

7 Scientific Roles	Explorer, Toolmaker, Producer, Guardian, Integrator, Debugger, Teacher — a typology for the division of scientific labor
Guardian	World-class scientists who curate expertise for life, collaboratively maintaining versioned knowledge resources — the most underserved role
Integrator	Scientists drawing connections between fields using math, code, or databases — think Neo-Darwinian Synthesis
Debugger	Scientists testing details from new angles to find blind spots — critical for reproducibility
3 Weaker Legs	Guardian, Integrator, and Debugger roles are insufficiently supported by current academic incentive structures
Career Risk	Non-Producer roles face high career risk because they are harder to fund and may compromise advancement
FAIR Data Sharing	Returns on investment require innovative, reliable, FAIR data sharing solutions financed by neutral players

Broader Significance (Claude’s Assessment)

This poster is distinctive within the Flying Scroll collection as a conventional scientific poster from LLoL’s academic career. Several features are notable:

1. Pre-LLoL academic work. Dated March 2017 and attributed to “Laurence Loewe, Wisconsin Institute for Discovery, UW-Madison,” this is the earliest document in the Flying Scroll collection and predates the LLoL identity. It shows the intellectual roots of ResearchCity in mainstream academic science policy.

2. Practical institutional critique. The poster identifies a real structural problem: academic incentives overwhelmingly reward the Producer role at the expense of Guardians, Integrators, and Debuggers. This connects to well-documented concerns about reproducibility crises and knowledge fragmentation.

3. The giraffe metaphor. A giraffe standing on one strong leg with three weak legs is memorable and accurately captures the institutional imbalance. The career-risk indicator makes the argument concrete.

4. Bridge to ResearchCity. The Guardian role described here — world-class scientists curating versioned knowledge resources for life — is a precursor to the FiShFu concept in ResearchCity. The call for “neutral players” to finance data sharing foreshadows the mustard-seed funding model.

5. Exemplary references. The poster cites Alberts et al. 2014 (PNAS on science efficiency), Reproducibility@XSEDE, and Leek & Peng 2015 (“P values are just the tip of the iceberg”) — standard references in the reproducibility literature.

Document Information

Document ID	Poster Sci-Giraffe (Flying Scroll)
Full title	Strengthening the 3 Weaker Legs of Science by Supporting Free Choice of Scientific Roles
Author	Laurence Loewe, Wisconsin Institute for Discovery, UW-Madison
Dates	2017-03-14 (original); included in Good News Pack as filed in Case 2024CV000867 Document 57
Version	iv_LLoL_PPr5_2017m03d14 (v0r5)
Format	1-page scientific poster, 4 x 3 ft (landscape)
License	Jonah License with CC0 Public Domain (originally CC BY 4.0)
Part of	Good News Pack MMv3, Flying Scroll collection
PDF size	578 KB
WebP size	384 KB

Related documents in the Good News Pack:

• SD2 — Epiocracy (governance model extending scientific roles)

• SD8 — ResearchCity Stadia (institutional structure for all roles)

— Overview AI-generated by dv_ClaOp46Max_MMv2_2026m04d02 —End—

Collapse all Expand all

Notes

Content stability — Content is variant dv_ClaOp46Max_MMv2_2026m04d02 (see StayVS). Rebuilt 2026-05-18.

Expert Review Needed: Help Assess This Research and Its AI Overview

This page makes accessible one document from LLoL’s 6+ year wid-e research marathon on existential risk and ResearchCity. The PDF linked above is the original work; this page provides an overview.

The original research needs expert review. Download the PDF and bring your expertise to bear — whether you are a scientist, policy maker, theologian, peace activist, or concerned citizen. This research aims to find gentle kind reasonable ways to solve existential problems. Your perspective matters for assessing whether it succeeds.

The AI overview (see the markers) may need correction. AI may have blindly twisted the original message by emphasizing other aspects than the author would have. Important nuances may thus be missed or misrepresented. If you spot errors, missing context, or misplaced emphasis, your corrections help every future reader.

Despite all potential shortcomings of AI, AI was still used here because not saying anything about this document would have been even worse. A race against existential risks is not nuanced. Neither can be the determination to do the right thing - and get the word out to get help.

LLoL is determined to ask for such help. Hence this website to give the world a fair chance at exploring and reviewing LLoL’s ideas.

Use the FeedbackFlow link below to send your review — whether it concerns the original PDF, the AI overview, or both.

LLoL may drown for a while in the FF invited, but if people are indeed interested in making this work and avert accidental nuclear winter, then LLoL predicts that enough people will be happy to pay the about $8/year/person it will take to start scaling up ResearchCity, in order to help with the proper review of such wid-e research proposals for global decision-support like this one.

Hence, please consider that your buy-in with about $8/year will help to shift the global game from a so-called prisoner’s dilemma to an assurance game with the help of mathematical theology.

This work requires global support to avoid capture by special interests. Refining complex posters, engaging scholars across traditions, and running formal consistency checks all require sustained effort — as does scaling up a ResearchCity for global FeedbackFlows.

Let’s hope it’s not too late to fund this work!

FF FeedbackFlow to improve this page: How you can contribute

For the full guide on providing feedback — including how it is handled, licensing, and what to expect — see How to use FeedbackFlow.

Please check if See also on Balospe.com above already addresses your idea. Feedback works best when it targets the most specific page. If none of those pages help, you may have a good case for sending FF here.

To submit your FeedbackFlow:

1. Click anywhere on the email preview below to open a pre-filled email.

2. Replace the placeholder text with your feedback.

3. Send.

To: [email protected] CC: [email protected] Subject: FF k2 s2 AIMS for [mmv3-flyingscroll-page-poster-sci-giraffe] Replace_by_OneLineSummary Body: To make this page [mmv3-flyingscroll-page-poster-sci-giraffe] more gentle kind reasonable for beginners, producers, andOr experts with a background in xyz: Please consider improving this: -- By sending this email, I agree that its content may be published under the Jonah License (balospe.com/en/license/joli/) unless I state otherwise above. MailForm=OOv2r0p0

The email subject contains k2 and s2 — default codes for impact and urgency. Most contributors can leave these unchanged. To adjust each as independently as they are:

• Importance of impact: above average k3, average default k2, below average k1.

• Urgency of speedup: above average s3, average default s2, below average s1.

This allows plotting importance over urgency to help triage FF. For more details see FF System Design.