That is false logic. There have been numerous studies demonstrating the remarkable over-all productivity of American scientists. However, that does not mean that the system for funding is the reason. In fact, it is quite possible, and i'ld argue very likely that these same individuals would be remarkably more productive if not devotion time to grantsmanship. A point I should also offer is that this is not coming from someone who has difficulty with grantsmanship. heck, I was a proposal writer for a major not-for-profit and managed their grants program during the entire time. I'm just pointing out what is frank logic. you have a trade-off with time you devote to professional activities. If you are spending time doing data collection, then that same time cannot be used for other things. Likewise, if you are using it to get proposals prepared, you are not collecting, analyzing data or preparing manuscripts aat the same time. You must divide your time among these activities. I've long thought it would be wise for science departmetns to hire a professional grantwriter who specializes in science grants, particularly for non-research funding. A good grantwriter is worth his/her weight in gold because he/she understands the system.
I don't think anyone does this though! :) M On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 4:14 PM, <mcnee...@cox.net> wrote: > Well, politics certainly interferes with the furtherance of science, as do > the mechanics you describe. > > But, hmmm....... . Do European institutions excel relative to the U.S. in > scientific progress? Many of them do have funded institutions, with funded > laboratories within them. > > David McNeely > > ---- malcolm McCallum <malcolm.mccal...@herpconbio.org> wrote: >> Well, first they disbanded political science research, and now they >> are trying to do the first steps to slowing science. The person at >> NSF who approves funding must justify such. why? that way the >> congress can go after that person, exert pressure on the scientific >> process, and turn it into a political instead of a scientific process. >> >> http://news.sciencemag.org/education/2013/11/republican-plan-guide-nsf-programs-draws-darts-and-befuddlement-research-advocates >> >> These developments are interesting to me because when NSF was first >> being conceived there were those who felt the concept would slow >> science by turning it into a search for funding rather than a search >> for facts. More and more, we are becoming important for the money we >> can bring in rather than our contribution to the greater good. >> >> >From the Mark Gable Foundation (A short story in the compendium, The >> Voices of Dophins, by Leo Szilard) published in ???? >> (http://books.google.com/books?id=xm2mAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false), >> when Mark Gable asked how to slow science, this was the answer >> provided: >> >> "Well," I said, " I think that shouldn't be very difficult. As a >> matter of fact, I think it would be quite easy. You could set up a >> foundation, with an annual endowment of thirty million dollars. >> Research workers in need of funds could apply for grants, if they >> could make out a convincing case. Have ten committees, each composed >> of twelve scientists, appointed to pass on these applications. Take >> the most active scientists out of the laboratory and make them members >> of these committees. And, the very best men in the field should be >> appointed as chairmen at salamries of fifty thousand dollars each. >> Also have about twenty prizes of one hundred thousand dollars each for >> hte best scientific papers of the year. This is just about all you >> would have to do. Your lawyers could easily prepare a charter for the >> foundation. As a matter of fact, any of the National Science >> Foundation bills which were introduced in the Seventy-ninth and >> Eightieth Congresses could perfectly well serve as a model." >> "I think you had better explain to Mr. Gable why this foundation >> would in fact retard the progress of science," said a bespectacled >> young man sitting at the far end of the table, whose name i didn't get >> at the time of introduction. >> "It should be obvious," i said. "First of all, the best scientists >> would be removed from their laboratories and kept busy on committees >> passing on applications for funds. Secondly, the scientific workers in >> need of funds would concentrate on problems which were considered >> promising and were pretty certain to lead to publishable results. For >> a few years there might be a great increase in scientific output; but >> by going after the obvious, pretty soon science would dry out. Science >> woudl become something like a parlor game. Some things would be >> considered interesting, others not. There would be fashions. Those >> who followed the fashion would get grants. Those who wouldn't woudl >> not, and pretty soon they would learn to follow the fashion, too." >> **** >> In other words, scientists would not take chances, because that risks >> getting grants, they would not do long-term research because it is >> slow to payoff, they would spend most of their time managing grant >> money, evaluating other people's research, and not doing it >> themselves. scientists would follow fads whether that is good or not, >> at the cost of other fields. In a lot of way, this was a prophetic >> two pages that has in a lot of ways come true. Imagine how much work >> you could get done if your had a line item budget that covered the >> costs of your research and you did not have to spend time writing >> proposals, managing grants. How much money would be saved in research >> if 10-80% of the funded grand did not go to indirect costs and similar >> places? >> >> Understand, I know we are where we are, and each of us must work in >> the current system as it exists, and that it isn't changing. However, >> this story certainly nailed many problems to the wall that arise when >> you have competitive funding instead of line items. >> >> >> >> -- >> Malcolm L. McCallum >> Department of Environmental Studies >> University of Illinois at Springfield >> >> Managing Editor, >> Herpetological Conservation and Biology >> >> >> >> "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - >> Allan Nation >> >> 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert >> 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, >> and pollution. >> 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction >> MAY help restore populations. >> 2022: Soylent Green is People! >> >> The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) >> Wealth w/o work >> Pleasure w/o conscience >> Knowledge w/o character >> Commerce w/o morality >> Science w/o humanity >> Worship w/o sacrifice >> Politics w/o principle >> >> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any >> attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may >> contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized >> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not >> the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and >> destroy all copies of the original message. > > -- > David McNeely -- Malcolm L. McCallum Department of Environmental Studies University of Illinois at Springfield Managing Editor, Herpetological Conservation and Biology "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - Allan Nation 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, and pollution. 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction MAY help restore populations. 2022: Soylent Green is People! The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) Wealth w/o work Pleasure w/o conscience Knowledge w/o character Commerce w/o morality Science w/o humanity Worship w/o sacrifice Politics w/o principle Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original message.
