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
