I agree with some of these items and disagree with others, and don't really want to argue those points in this forum. My bigger concern is that if this list is meant to come from a group of scientists, it should include scientific data, rather than opinion and hostility. Are there data that tenure promotes exploitation and laziness? I wouldn't be surprised if there were, but expressing this point as personal experience, rather than a statistical trend, is no different than saying that global warming is a farce because it is cold where I am today. I am less sure that there are data to support spousal hires as "deplorable", "without merit" (surely there is SOME merit, or nobody would do it), and reducing "innovation and productivity in science". In my experience, I have seen such hires work out incredibly well for departments and for the field of science, but again, that is just my experience and may or may not reflect a broader trend. Although there are some good points to be made here, expressing them in such a way is unlikely to convince scientifically-minded people (I wish this meant "everybody").
--- Casey terHorst Assistant Professor Department of Biology California State University, Northridge 18111 Nordhoff Street Northridge, CA 91330-8303 Office Phone: (818) 677-3352 casey.terho...@csun.edu On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 7:54 AM, Aaron T. Dossey <bugoc...@gmail.com> wrote: > I am interested in feedback on this: > > https://www.facebook.com/notes/national-postdoc-union/ideas-for-expanding-opportunity-and-innovation-in-science-careers-version-2-revi/454721067976787 > > Ideas for expanding opportunity and innovation in science careers - Version > 2 (REVISED) August 18, 2013 (3:00 PM EST) > August 18, 2013 at 3:07pm > Ideas for expanding opportunity and innovation in science careers - Version > 2 (REVISED) > August 18, 2013 (3:00 PM EST) > > 1) Elevating the White House Office of Science and Technology to > cabinet-level. > > 2) Expand the number and size of common core facilities for various research > needs (analytical chemistry cores, sequencing cores, animal facility cores, > etc.) and the number of stable career staff scientists positions > ('permanent' with benefits) - but have them report not to an individual PI > or faculty boss, but to the department as an institutional resource (not the > property of an individual PI). > > 3) Remove “trainee” (student and postdoc) salaries/stipends from research > grants and make them all competitive fellowships, or (but this second one > has some problems) give the money to institutions to pay student stipends > with so that individual professors do not do the hiring or control the > trainee’s employment/salary/benefits directly. > > 4) Mandate that all institutions eligible for federal funding allow postdocs > (and possibly graduate students) to be sole Principle Investigators on > grants which they write if they choose. > > 5) Invest in/create/fund a much wider variety of permanent/stable staff > scientist career track positions at institutions geared toward Ph.D.'s - > particularly for core research service facilities (which should be expanded > greatly). > > 6) Fund “Innovation Incubators” for postdocs (but with independent > researcher titles) to work in common labspace, no offices, and using core > facilities to pursue our research without a faculty boss. These researchers > could do a lot with such limited resources, as long as we have independence. > We could pursue our own funding and even stay in those positions if we don’t > feel the need to seek higher titles – just remain productive in that job > indefinitely. Those of us who want a larger lab of our own can use the > position to create preliminary data and apply for grants to do it – either > to “earn” more lab space at the same institution or apply for positions at > other institutions. > > 7) Limit the number of employees that an individual faculty scientists (or > “permanent” scientists in federal agencies and national labs) lab can have – > limit on grad students, postdocs, and technicians. Possibly only limit > trainees (grad students and postdocs). This will allow faculty scientists to > actually focus more on science and less on administration of large > laboratory empires. Often the lab bosses are disconnected from much of the > research going on in the largest labs. This causes an ackward situation > whereby the indepdent scientist (postdoc, etc.) who conceived and conducted > the research must add the boss to a senior position on the grant or > publication artificially, thus making it impossible to distinguish whose > ideas they were and who did the work, further exacerbating the difficulty > for the employee to get their own independent position and lab. This > situation has a severely negative impact on the innovation per dollar of > federal funding. > > 8) End the system of tenure for faculty, it's an out-dated system which > severely hampers innovation, reduced career opportunities in science and > incentivizes exploitation and laziness. > > 9) Make the identity submitter of grant proposals and manuscripts unknown to > the reviewers and decision makers as much as possible - ie: anonymous > applications/proposals for grants etc. - double-blind, so the reviewers do > not know the applicant and vice versa. This would make the system more fair > for younger and less established scientists. > > 10) Put an annual limit on the amount of total federal grant dollars that > one person (principle investigator) can be given for research (this would > not include small business, education and other types of grants). This would > allow more grants to be funded, which would benefit younger scientists – > give us a toe in the door by spreading the funding a little wider. It would > also incentivize institutions to hire MORE scientists (especially more > independent ones who can apply for funding) and also incentivize scientists > to pursue PRIVATE funding as well as commercialization (entrepreneurism?) of > products resulting from their discoveries. > > 11) All employees at research institutions should be paid the full amount > budgeted in the original grant. When they write grants, they budget X amount > for a postech, for a studentech, etc. However, they don't advertize the > salary and try to negotiate it down. That's a farce because the agency GAVE > them that money FOR the person they hire, so that person should be paid all > of it. > > 12) Mandate twice per year surveys for trainees (students and postdocs) paid > on grants to be sent directly from the agency to the trainee and directly > back to the institution. These should focus on career outlooks, career > services provided at the institution, human resources grievances/complaints, > and especially (the bulk of the survey) should focus on the quaity of > mentoring they are getting. Mentoring scores should be utilized to evaluate > future grants in which a PI requests funding for trainees. > > 13) Forbid the hiring of scientists/researchers/faculty based on marital > status. This practice is nepotism: it is deplorable, without merit, greatly > reduces innovation and productivity in science and probably also violates > equal opportunity laws - certainly in spirit if not in letter. I am very > interested in your thoughts on these, and thoughts others may have > (particularly in prominent positions in science and leadership). > > ATD of ATB and ISI > -- > Aaron T. Dossey, Ph.D. > Biochemistry and Molecular Biology > Founder/Owner: All Things Bugs Inc. > Capitalizing on Low-Crawling Fruit from Insect-Based Innovation > http://allthingsbugs.com > http://www.facebook.com/Allthingsbugs > https://www.facebook.com/InvertebrateStudiesInstitute > 1-352-281-3643 > >
