MARLA@CHEMF.RUTGERS.EDU (02/12/91)
What started as a call to ACTION from a passive community has degenerated into a FLAME war on the genome "boondoggle". Instead of trying to stop the fire, how about faning it? Let's face it, the rub is too little money, so good grants are getting turned down in some reasearch areas, while less qualified grants put into a 'privileged' project such, as the human genome project get funded. I can only say that if the overall view of academia is it's the only place to do "real science" with no other function, the students of the country are in real trouble. Teaching should not be a "hassle", teaching should be a way of passing on the torch, getting new people into the field, passing on some of the time and energy that was invested in "you" by some academician that "brainwashed" you into feel that being an academic is something worthwhile. (Sorry for a personel jab, but I haven't seen anyone mention the other functions of an academician) If all you want is "real science", industry can (but not necessarily) fill that desire. Yes, some companies (an ever increasing number unfortunately) treat their PhD's, who have gone through "years as an indentured servant" like "well paid"(?) indentured servants. There are still some places where (with a little justification) one can do "real science"; and better than in "hassle" filled academia. At the government lab and commercial lab I worked at, the technical assistance and equipment were far better than I have ever experienced in an academic environment. Internal collaborations were also exceptionally good. I started this whole thing to say that 'really good people are dropping out or never going into the field in the first place'. Too often (from experience) those that don't continue are exactly the type of people that are needed in the field. People with idealism, who get tired of the politics that shouldn't exist but does (human nature). People who may not "set the world on fire" with their research but can really teach well and inspire student to also go into the profession. People who want to work on an obscure problem, not planning to get into the history books, but wanting to understand what they're working on better than anyone has before them. Too often schools look at how much money is being brought in by someone, not wether they can teach or do the reasearch themselves. The person bringing in the money, too often becomes so isolated from "real science" that they become worse paper pushers than anyone running a database. So let's stop throwing arrows back an forth. There are advantages and disadvantages to anyplace one works, but without new blood coming into the field (in spite of the over-abundance being suggested) what will the future bring? I'm still calling for action. How can we as a community help each other? How can we help the student find a job or post-doc? How can we help the post-doc find a faculty or industry position? How can we help the catagory of 'those requiring green cards' stay in this country in the area's they know the best? The system is whatever it is, what can we do within the system to make it better? We could work at changing the attitudes that the only "real science" is in academia. Or that creating good "tools" or "methods" isn't "real science"? Someone trying to "see the forest for the trees" is doing "real science" they're often called theoreticians. If nothing else, I've seen a few new names getting on the BBoard so this exercise hasn't been completely futile. I just hope that in the future when a contraversy begins, if the sparks fly, let it ignites and burn. This is suppose to be a place to give ones views, weather everyone one likes them or not. Suggesting that they not be written will only kill the BBoard in the long run. If someone writes something, they may get flack, but they should never be discouraged from getting involved or they just may not bother in the future. No insults Please.
dow@presto.ig.com (Christopher Dow) (02/15/91)
In article <BEBBF12974DF20023B@chemf.rutgers.edu>, MARLA@CHEMF.RUTGERS.EDU writes: > > Let's face it, the rub is too little money, so good grants are > getting turned down in some reasearch areas, while less qualified > grants put into a 'privileged' project such, as the human genome > project get funded. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the last I heard (from a reliable source) was that the 'priveledged' project was AIDS research which at one time (and maybe even still) recieved more money than cancer research, although it kills less people. > No insults Please. None intended. Chris Dow IntelliGenetics Software Engineer 700 East El Camino Real icbmnet: 37 22' 39" N, 122 3' 32" W Mountain View, Ca. 94040 dow@presto.ig.com (415) 962-7320