On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 2:34 PM, Karin Lagesen <[email protected]> wrote: > On 01/04/15 16:58, Erik Bray wrote: >> >> >> Generally I agree, though I don't feel completely comfortable in this >> case privileging good science done for profit over not. That's in >> contrast to my personal views that science should always be done for >> the sake of it. But in teaching SWC workshops my goal has always been >> to reach individual scientists and hopefully make it just a tiny bit >> easier for them to do *their* jobs; it's irrelevant who they're >> working for. Then again, if it's a matter of who's paying and what >> they're getting out of it I can see the other side, and so I think >> this proposal is reasonable. > I think the sticking point for at least some people here was that > instructors under the current policy effectively donate their time. Now, > donating your time to a fellow researcher whose main production unit are > papers is distinctly different from donating your time to a company whose > aim is to make money for the shareholders of that company. With the proposed > pilot model people are still donating their time to the company in question, > but at the same time their efforts will help float other workshops.
Yes, I can understand this point of view, and I'm glad that the funding structure is what it is--so that institutes that can pay more upfront cost will in turn be enabling more SWC availability to institutes and researchers who can't as easily afford it. Big thumbs up for that, no problem. Though I do think it's unfair to paint the output of researchers working for for-profit companies as directly contributing to profits for the company's owners/shareholders. Scientists who work for for-profit companies produce papers too--quite a lot in fact--and their research does not always translate directly into profits for the company. So their research output, as measured in publications/citations, is just as important for them to stay afloat. Not all science done in the for-profit world has immediate application, or even if it does it can take decades and lots of trial and error, which results in papers and research that can benefit other researchers working on the same problems (I'm thinking especially pharmaceutical and agricultural research, though this can apply to high tech/electronics/material science/etc. too.) So when I'm donating my time to teach a SWC--even to say researchers at Monsanto, or IBM--I'm still donating it to fellow researchers and hopefully making things better for them. That may translate into profits for their employer--but I think more often than not you won't be able to draw a direct line between teaching a scientist R so that they can do better statistical analysis to some stockholder buying a new car. Erik _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.software-carpentry.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.software-carpentry.org
