Excellent proposal Givnish. MacCallum, I was not intending to disagree with your comments. In fact, I stated that I agreed. I just thought all related information should be considered before declaring the grants system a total bust. It does result in good science, it just interferes with a lot of other good science getting done.
David McNeely ---- "Thomas J. Givnish" <[email protected]> wrote: > Arguably, the changes DEB itself has installed in the NSF review process over > the past two years are also likely to damage the American scientific > enterprise. In order to relieve pressure on staff and reviewers, DEB has gone > to a once-a-year cycle of pre-proposals, with at most two pre-proposals per > investigator, and with ca. 30% of submissions allowed to go forward with full > proposals. The once-per-year aspect is deadly, in my opinion and that of > every senior ecologist and evolutionary biologist I've spoken with. The > chances of going for more than two years without support – whether for > justifiable cause, or a wacko review or two from a small pool of screeners – > are quite substantial. No funding for two or three years = lab death for > anyone pursuing high-cost research w/o a start-up or retention package in > hand. Lab death can hit both junior and senior investigators; the forced > movement to a once-a-year cycle means that the ability to respond quickly to > useful reviewer comments and erroneous reviewer claims is halved. The role of > random, wacko elements in the review process (and we all know very well those > are there), is probably doubled. And the ability to pursue timely ecological > research is substantially reduced by doubling the lags in the system. The > full proposal for those who are invited effectively increases the > proposal-writing workload for many of the best scientists. We have been > saddled with a system that is sluggish, slow to adapt, more prone to > stochastic factors, and more ensnarling of the top researchers in red tape. > We can and must do better. > > My advice: Return to two review cycles per year, no pre-proposals, and make > the full proposals just six pages long. Total review efforts will most likely > be reduced over even the current experimental approach, and writing efforts > by successful proposers will be greatly reduced. One incidental advantage: by > reducing the amount of eye-glazing detail on experimental protocols – which > we are not in any case bound to follow if we receive the award – we might > reduce the core temptation to which (alas) many reviewers and panel members > are prone, of playing gotcha with minor details of protocol while giving > short shrift to the innovative or possibly transformational value of the > studies being proposed. > > > Thomas J. Givnish > Henry Allan Gleason Professor of Botany > University of Wisconsin > > [email protected] > http://botany.wisc.edu/givnish/Givnish/Welcome.html > > > On 11/20/13, malcolm McCallum wrote: > > That is false logic. > > There have been numerous studies demonstrating the remarkable over-all > > productivity of American scientists. However, that does not mean > > that the system for funding is the reason. In fact, it is quite > > possible, and i'ld argue very likely that these same individuals would > > be remarkably more productive if not devotion time to grantsmanship. > > A point I should also offer is that this is not coming from someone > > who has difficulty with grantsmanship. heck, I was a proposal writer > > for a major not-for-profit and managed their grants program during the > > entire time. I'm just pointing out what is frank logic. you have a > > trade-off with time you devote to professional activities. If you are > > spending time doing data collection, then that same time cannot be > > used for other things. Likewise, if you are using it to get proposals > > prepared, you are not collecting, analyzing data or preparing > > manuscripts aat the same time. You must divide your time among these > > activities. I've long thought it would be wise for science > > departmetns to hire a professional grantwriter who specializes in > > science grants, particularly for non-research funding. A good > > grantwriter is worth his/her weight in gold because he/she understands > > the system. > > > > I don't think anyone does this though! :) > > M > > > > On Tue, Nov 19, 2013 at 4:14 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Well, politics certainly interferes with the furtherance of science, as > > > do the mechanics you describe. > > > > > > But, hmmm....... . Do European institutions excel relative to the U.S. in > > > scientific progress? Many of them do have funded institutions, with > > > funded laboratories within them. > > > > > > David McNeely > > > > > > ---- malcolm McCallum <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> Well, first they disbanded political science research, and now they > > >> are trying to do the first steps to slowing science. The person at > > >> NSF who approves funding must justify such. why? that way the > > >> congress can go after that person, exert pressure on the scientific > > >> process, and turn it into a political instead of a scientific process. > > >> > > >> http://news.sciencemag.org/education/2013/11/republican-plan-guide-nsf-programs-draws-darts-and-befuddlement-research-advocates > > >> > > >> These developments are interesting to me because when NSF was first > > >> being conceived there were those who felt the concept would slow > > >> science by turning it into a search for funding rather than a search > > >> for facts. More and more, we are becoming important for the money we > > >> can bring in rather than our contribution to the greater good. > > >> > > >> >From the Mark Gable Foundation (A short story in the compendium, The > > >> Voices of Dophins, by Leo Szilard) published in ???? > > >> (http://books.google.com/books?id=xm2mAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false), > > >> when Mark Gable asked how to slow science, this was the answer > > >> provided: > > >> > > >> "Well," I said, " I think that shouldn't be very difficult. As a > > >> matter of fact, I think it would be quite easy. You could set up a > > >> foundation, with an annual endowment of thirty million dollars. > > >> Research workers in need of funds could apply for grants, if they > > >> could make out a convincing case. Have ten committees, each composed > > >> of twelve scientists, appointed to pass on these applications. Take > > >> the most active scientists out of the laboratory and make them members > > >> of these committees. And, the very best men in the field should be > > >> appointed as chairmen at salamries of fifty thousand dollars each. > > >> Also have about twenty prizes of one hundred thousand dollars each for > > >> hte best scientific papers of the year. This is just about all you > > >> would have to do. Your lawyers could easily prepare a charter for the > > >> foundation. As a matter of fact, any of the National Science > > >> Foundation bills which were introduced in the Seventy-ninth and > > >> Eightieth Congresses could perfectly well serve as a model." > > >> "I think you had better explain to Mr. Gable why this foundation > > >> would in fact retard the progress of science," said a bespectacled > > >> young man sitting at the far end of the table, whose name i didn't get > > >> at the time of introduction. > > >> "It should be obvious," i said. "First of all, the best scientists > > >> would be removed from their laboratories and kept busy on committees > > >> passing on applications for funds. Secondly, the scientific workers in > > >> need of funds would concentrate on problems which were considered > > >> promising and were pretty certain to lead to publishable results. For > > >> a few years there might be a great increase in scientific output; but > > >> by going after the obvious, pretty soon science would dry out. Science > > >> woudl become something like a parlor game. Some things would be > > >> considered interesting, others not. There would be fashions. Those > > >> who followed the fashion would get grants. Those who wouldn't woudl > > >> not, and pretty soon they would learn to follow the fashion, too." > > >> **** > > >> In other words, scientists would not take chances, because that risks > > >> getting grants, they would not do long-term research because it is > > >> slow to payoff, they would spend most of their time managing grant > > >> money, evaluating other people's research, and not doing it > > >> themselves. scientists would follow fads whether that is good or not, > > >> at the cost of other fields. In a lot of way, this was a prophetic > > >> two pages that has in a lot of ways come true. Imagine how much work > > >> you could get done if your had a line item budget that covered the > > >> costs of your research and you did not have to spend time writing > > >> proposals, managing grants. How much money would be saved in research > > >> if 10-80% of the funded grand did not go to indirect costs and similar > > >> places? > > >> > > >> Understand, I know we are where we are, and each of us must work in > > >> the current system as it exists, and that it isn't changing. However, > > >> this story certainly nailed many problems to the wall that arise when > > >> you have competitive funding instead of line items. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> -- > > >> Malcolm L. McCallum > > >> Department of Environmental Studies > > >> University of Illinois at Springfield > > >> > > >> Managing Editor, > > >> Herpetological Conservation and Biology > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - > > >> Allan Nation > > >> > > >> 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert > > >> 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, > > >> and pollution. > > >> 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction > > >> MAY help restore populations. > > >> 2022: Soylent Green is People! > > >> > > >> The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) > > >> Wealth w/o work > > >> Pleasure w/o conscience > > >> Knowledge w/o character > > >> Commerce w/o morality > > >> Science w/o humanity > > >> Worship w/o sacrifice > > >> Politics w/o principle > > >> > > >> Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any > > >> attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may > > >> contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized > > >> review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not > > >> the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and > > >> destroy all copies of the original message. > > > > > > -- > > > David McNeely > > > > > > > > -- > > Malcolm L. McCallum > > Department of Environmental Studies > > University of Illinois at Springfield > > > > Managing Editor, > > Herpetological Conservation and Biology > > > > > > > > "Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - > > Allan Nation > > > > 1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea" W.S. Gilbert > > 1990's: Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss, > > and pollution. > > 2000: Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction > > MAY help restore populations. > > 2022: Soylent Green is People! > > > > The Seven Blunders of the World (Mohandas Gandhi) > > Wealth w/o work > > Pleasure w/o conscience > > Knowledge w/o character > > Commerce w/o morality > > Science w/o humanity > > Worship w/o sacrifice > > Politics w/o principle > > > > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any > > attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may > > contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized > > review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not > > the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and > > destroy all copies of the original message. > > -- -- David McNeely
