There was a comment on a prior post suggesting that when postdocs are funded by a RPG, this prevents them from engaging in independent scholarship.
When I was a postdoc, regardless of source of my salary (variously grants, TG and individual fellowship), I was certainly constrained by the grants funding the lab. But I felt it was up to me to add value. To leverage my own interests to pursue extras and add-one that the lab head perhaps had not thought about as a strong interest. And whaddaya know, this direction turned into a funded R01. And eventually into publications.
I have always felt that my independent scholarship, such as it was, was at liberty to develop just so long as it was within the broad scope of contributing to the RPG.
Does true "independent scholarship" require something that does not contribute in any way to the goals of the grants funding the lab?
Does anyone actually like ANY part of reviewing grants via one of those threaded web forum things?
I hate them and I really resent the thought that my precious applications are subjected to this fiasco.
One additional twist to consider. In my most recent few experiences with this as a reviewer, I have noticed that the per-reviewer grant load is low. As in 2-3 apps compared with 8-10 for a regular face to face meeting. I suppose when the costs for adding more reviewers are low (honorarium versus honorarium plus travel, plus housing), the SRO figures that bringing in more focused expertise per-application is a plus.
This comes at the cost of score calibration, in my estimation.
Can someone explain why the U.S. is wasting a single penny going after corruption in futbol? Nobody gives a fig about soccer in this country. Let the UK or Germans or someone go after these people.
Meanwhile, we should be prosecuting the financial and banking greedholes who crashed the world economy.
Datahound posted the comments he received on Google docs. Go read.
Comment over on DataHound.
What if you have a habitual offender in your field?
Someone who simply refuses to cite and discuss relevant literature from ten different labs. It isn't personal animus against a single lab at this point.
Do you take it out on them in your own papers? Reviews? Or just keep giving them harsh reviews? Do you talk to their occasional co-authors that you know well off the record?
Tweep @MHendr1cks is killing it. The latest.
The PI R01 age distribution looks like the 2010 one from this PPT file.
The "Jedi Council" is, I believe, the ages of the participants in a 2 day workshop convened by Alberts, Kirschner, Tilghman and Varmus as detailed here (see Acknowledgements).
To make this even more interesting, we can look at the 1980-2013 distributional overlay slide.
In 1980 the 35-40 year old PI demographic was the immediate pre-Boomer generation but oh, just wait. Stepping forward to 1986 we see...
another little bump. 1986 minus 40 equals the post-WWII definitinal start of the Boomers. These slides illustrate why strict generational definitions are only roughly accurate...so no need to get too fussed about those precise age ranges. Suffice it to say if you were born between about 1940 and 1953 you were in the awesomely lucky zone. Look at how the shoulder in the distribution at age 35 drops off right around 1988-1990 in the slide deck.
Who ARE these people who imagine only one person thought up some good idea in bioscience?
It's about execution not some random thought you happened to express in passing.
I imagine the answers are any of:
It was the project of a trainee now departed.
Trainee not competent* in eyes of PI.
It is actually the PI who leads this particular project.
Lab run like the salt mines, so called trainees treated as labor, not intellectual contributors.
One way the PI feels involved in the actual science.
Other reasons you can think of, Readers?
*to deal with cover letters, selecting editors, etc. The process of submission itself.
It is a crying shame that the science blogosphere's favorite Wankees fan, Comradde Physioproffe, does not coach tee ball, Farm or Pinto.