A pair of comments on my recent post on New Investigator data trends had me wondering if my PI / Professorial readership diverges from the overall distribution. ScienceWoman suggested a poll so here* goes.
This first one is for readers who are, or have been, of professorial rank in a science discipline within a job category in which acquisition of research funding is a significant expectation or requirement. This is meant to include those who have served as Principal Investigator on Federal or other major competitive research grants in research institutes, etc, as well.
This second one is for readers who are, or have been of professorial rank in a science discipline within a job category for which acquisition of research funding is not a significant requirement or expectation.
Prior DM Polls include:
- I suspect that DrugMonkey and PhysioProf are actually:
- Does the illicit status of any recreational drug affect your use of that drug?
*I take IACUC and IRB approval of research studies quite seriously and they are essential to the protection of animal and human research subjects, respectively. The issue of dumb little unscientific (read, not validated against various biases, screened for untoward harm to participants) internet polls is very much a gray area. From what I can tell, there is a great deal of variance in the way local IRBs deal with these sorts of things and there is always a question as to whether such polls should fall under "research" or not. I have actually gone so far as to get an initial read from my IRB in real life and have received the opinion that IRB consideration is not necessary for this sort of polling activity (and for that matter blogging activity). So this disclaimer is not a requirement as I currently understand my professional responsibilities on this subject. I just thought you might like to know where I stand.