[ECOLOG-L] Expanding opportunity and innovation in science
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
Re: [ECOLOG-L] Expanding opportunity and innovation in science
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 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
> incent
