Post by DrugMonkey on Jun 11, 2010 12:27:34 GMT -5
I write a blog (DrugMonkey) that focuses in large part on the NIH grant game. As you might expect, there are a tremendous number of similarities between the issues that have been at hand for NIH funded researchers and the issues that are raised on this forum so far.
I would first like to note that there is a reasonably vibrant blog community on the internet. A communicty that discusses issue related to US science funding, both NSF and NIH and more generally science careerism. Many of those venues have existing reader bases and the attention of online business-of-science media such as genomeweb, New Scientist, the news departments at Science and Nature, etc. I encourage you to take your criticisms and proposals outside of just this one venue in the interest of PR reach.
In addition I would encourage everyone to consider closely an issue that comes up over and over again in the NIH-focused discussion. We are all subject to a certain myopia*. The first symptom is that we interpret changes in our personal success rate (if we are relatively senior) or a lack of personal success as being unambiguous evidence that TheSystemIsBroken!. The second symptom is promotion of "solutions" that benefit our own personal career, laboratory, research programme, etc. At the expense of others of course ("Do it to Julia, not me, Julia!")
What should be considered in making our criticisms and generating solutions is, in my view, the strengthening of the overall scientific mission.
__
*As one is laying out one's set of solutions to the "problem" it may be useful to itemize which ones are likely to benefit and which ones are likely to hurt one's own research program. If the latter list comes up empty it is a good bet you are too focused on your own situation.
I would first like to note that there is a reasonably vibrant blog community on the internet. A communicty that discusses issue related to US science funding, both NSF and NIH and more generally science careerism. Many of those venues have existing reader bases and the attention of online business-of-science media such as genomeweb, New Scientist, the news departments at Science and Nature, etc. I encourage you to take your criticisms and proposals outside of just this one venue in the interest of PR reach.
In addition I would encourage everyone to consider closely an issue that comes up over and over again in the NIH-focused discussion. We are all subject to a certain myopia*. The first symptom is that we interpret changes in our personal success rate (if we are relatively senior) or a lack of personal success as being unambiguous evidence that TheSystemIsBroken!. The second symptom is promotion of "solutions" that benefit our own personal career, laboratory, research programme, etc. At the expense of others of course ("Do it to Julia, not me, Julia!")
What should be considered in making our criticisms and generating solutions is, in my view, the strengthening of the overall scientific mission.
__
*As one is laying out one's set of solutions to the "problem" it may be useful to itemize which ones are likely to benefit and which ones are likely to hurt one's own research program. If the latter list comes up empty it is a good bet you are too focused on your own situation.
