Gather the reviews that you got for your research papers and grant applications. Everyone has one or more of those idiotic reviewers’ comments. Bring them out to have some fun. 🙂
A prominent question arose whether there would be major changes after this pope is gone. Analysts looked at the roster of the College of Cardinals and observed that the cardinals are relics of the past. They were inducted by either Pope John Paul II or Pope Benedict. They espouse the old ideas of their ‘mentors’. So the consensus emerged that given the pedigree and age of the cardinals, major reforms cannot be expected. Bummer!
Scientific research establishment is a living fossil. The scientific establishment, like the Church, is recalcitrant to change and resistant to new ideas. The policies, review processes, money allocation, research activities, hiring of scientists, publication of research papers, and the decisions on tenure and promotion of faculty are conducted in the spirit of medieval feudal system.
A scientist is supposed to push the boundaries of knowledge. Unfortunately, old duds on review committees’ rosters are impervious to new ideas. Some are mean and greedy who have outlived their scientific utility and are unable to grasp the explosion of knowledge in modern science. Many are insecure and are bitterly critical of new developments yet they pretend to be broad-minded. Others are fools who still hold on to the idea of ‘hypothesis driven research’ as sacred. Together, they have stymied the progress of science and emergence of new ideas more than any politician could ever do. Scientific progress cannot be achieved at its fullest if the research is to be judged by scientists entrenched in their archaic research ideas.
The question is not whether the old scientists sitting at the helm of affairs should be replaced by the young blood, but how soon it should be done. Take action, write to your elected representative. Every voice counts.
Science is a business of ideas. By its very definition, researchers are required to generate new ideas. However, the ideas do not pop up in vacuum. Astute researchers have to master the literature, learn where the gaps in the current field of research exist and then find a feasible way to fill those gaps.
The way the current research training is done, the majority of researchers eventually become rigid in their ideas. Their research becomes dull and boring. In the name of ‘detailed study’ they keep burrowing deeper into descriptive research. Years of battles with paper publications, failed grant applications and stress of obtaining tenure and load of teaching wears them out. Only few remain as enthusiastic as they were in the beginnings of their career. Of those who remain enthusiastic, most are not driven by scientific inquiry but by the social and political thrill of it.
Surviving on the stolen ideas of trainees and postdocs becomes a viable means of their academic lives. But they have to do it in a sophisticated way. Here are a few simple ways to do it:
1. ‘Encourage’ every trainee applicant to write a 2 page mock research proposal. This is a shotgun approach whereby anyone showing an interest in your research can be asked to provide idea of what to do. You then take those ideas and adopt them in your current research.
2. Group discussions/brain storming in lab. Pretend that you are helping people bring out their best. Make them bust their ass to beat each other’s ideas and then pick all the good ones as your own.
3. Once the trainee presents a great idea with some interesting preliminary data, kill his/her enthusiasm by saying that the idea is useless, not relevant, premature, too complex for the current state of science etc. During the next few months, gently incorporate the idea in your casual talks. Finally, give the project to someone other than the originator of the idea as your own.
4. Make your trainees write a fellowship proposal. Incorporate those questions as an aim in your own grant. Pretend that it was all your own to begin with.
There are many more subtle ways you can steal the idea of your trainees to call your own. With the years of toiling under your own mentor, you have consciously or unconsciously picked up techniques to put down your colleagues and steal intellectual property. Now it is your turn to perpetuate it. Do it with style, do it with authority and when challenged, you can always say that all data and ideas belong to NIH or the institution. You only happen to be an agent of theft (read hired thief).
There are other better ways as you climb up the ladder of your academic career. You can steal from other labs by being a reviewer. Oh, don’t give me the shit about ethics and confidentiality. You know what I mean.
If everything else fails, you can also resort to saying that ideas are not novel it is the ability to materialize them matters.
Lawyers are universally loathed for their ability to fudge the truth. In reality, scientists can be worse than lawyers. They wear the cloak of honesty and objectivity, but the unscrupulous ones are constantly twisting the truth, presenting half-truth, and backstabbing with hidden dagger of greed and deception.
The great economic crisis in the Western world has affected the academic and research institutions. One of the major funding agencies NIH has seen effective funding cut that has translated in reduction of both number of research grants and the amount of money apportioned to them. The situation has reached a crisis level. Yet, there seems to be no effect on the ‘higher echelons’ of the research community.
Research dollars are disproportionately distributed among researchers. Although we resent to the notion that 1% of the US population possesses 90% of the wealth, we do not react the same way to the financial disparity in scientific research. Relatively few scientists have monopolized the major chunk of tax-payers’ dollars while a large number of competent and innovative scientists do not. This needs to end!
In these difficult times, everyone is required to sacrifice a little. We ought to ensure that publicly funded scientific research is distributed to all competent scientists and not only to the members of scientific power broker cartel. There is no obvious reason why a researcher should have more than one R01 grant, especially during tough economic situation. By adopting One PI= One R01, the NIH can support thousands more new scientists and diversify the scientific research base. By doing so, NIH will promote innovative research to catalyze scientific growth.
We should also understand that NIH cannot make a law. To achieve One PI=One R01, we have to inform and educate our legislators of the benefits of this formula. Write to your House Representative and Senator asking them to consider broadening the productive and innovative scientific base by expanding the participation by new scientists. Ask them to implement One PI= One R01 formula. There are numerous benefits of One PI= One R01 to the scientific community. It will improve educational standards of the universities and will bring back talent to our educational institutions. This is the only way to assure that dwindling scientific impact is regained.