There is that…
Plus, I suspect many of us, once we reach the position of PI, have to struggle
not to feel guilty or torn when we are doing outdoor work that we aren’t inside
writing papers and grants! It is easy to feel that we should be delegating
most such tasks, even if we enjoy them, to take care of “higher level” issues.
I feel lucky that I have many colleagues at my institution who recognize the
importance of balance and good mental health. But even when that is the case,
the pressures coming from the world-at-large can lead to stress even if your
local environment is relatively supportive.
I have developed a tendency to flinch every time someone says
“Professor/academics/scientists should do more [fill in blank]”. The thing is,
it is often true. We SHOULD get creative with teaching, connect with local
communities, work with management agencies etc. to make sure our work is
relevant and can make a difference, and so on. The problem is that while all
these goals have gotten more lip service in recent years, the reward systems
are if anything even more focused on research productivity than ever before.
So it can seem like the options are: A) focus on your research and do the bare
minimum on teaching, outreach, etc. and MAYBE you can do more of that stuff
once you have tenure or you retire, B) shift more focus to the activities that
might make your research more meaningful in the world, but maybe miss your
publication goals and risk not getting tenure, or C) try to do it all and risk
burning out (or totally disconnecting from your family or other things you care
about).
Regarding the pressure to get grants, I’ve recently wondered the following:
have we, as individual scientists, institutions, and scientific societies, been
making a strong enough case for the IMMEDIATE benefits of funding for
scientific research? If funding sources (federal and otherwise) don’t grow
faster than inflation, but the need for STEM-trained workers continues to
increase, we will inevitably be fighting over a smaller and smaller pie.
Some of the resistance to increasing funding seems to come from the
idea that if you can’t see an obvious payoff of a research project (eg. an HIV
vaccine) the money might be “wasted” - which is particularly problematic for
those of us who pursue basic science, applied science that doesn’t produce
patents, or high-risk projects. I have frequently heard arguments for the
long-term payoffs of basic research….which is important, but not necessarily
the thing that appeals most to politicians on a 2-6 year election cycle.
Instead, what about providing examples of how a $500,000 research grant
provides benefits NOW? There is the 50% or so in overhead that helps keep
universities running, supporting student learning, employing the people who
build and maintain labs and other facilities and provide administrative
support, and purchasing goods from a variety of companies. Then there is the
50% or so that goes to the research lab - a large chunk of that usually goes to
paying graduate and undergraduate students, postdocs, and lab staff. As with
anything that provides employment, this means these young scientists have cash
they can spend on local goods and services…as well as continue their training
so that they will be ready to make the scientific breakthroughs of the future.
Most of the rest goes to purchase equipment and supplies, which means that the
workers at the supply companies continue to get paid. I feel like I have
occasionally heard calculations that ever dollar that goes to scientific
research produces X dollars of benefit, but the components of that aren’t
always made apparent…and perhaps more personal stories of how grants get spent
could have an impact. It is natural for us to want to focus on the gains for
knowledge and education, because that is why we got into research in the first
place - and we certainly shouldn’t stop talking about that! But given that the
argument “we need to maintain/increase defense funding because otherwise we
will lose jobs” works so well, perhaps we should use that angle a little more
when we argue for increased research funding….
Emily M
On Nov 20, 2016, at 6:05 AM, Judith S. Weis <[email protected]> wrote:
> That may be the case, David, but I can think of two factors that may alter
> it:
> 1. more and more ecologists spending all their time indoors in front of a
> computer screen rather than in nature
> 2. attitudes and pressures from dept. chairs/deans etc. who may value
> molecular/cell biologists more highly because they bring in more money.
>
> Judy
>
>> There's an interesting article in the latest issue of Nature about
>> mental health issues for scientists facing career pressures:
>>
>> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v539/n7628/full/nj7628-319a.html
>>
>> I wonder whether ecologists, who may get to spend more time outside ("in
>> nature"), are less susceptible to depression than researchers in other
>> fields.
>>
>> --
>> Dr. David W. Inouye
>> Professor Emeritus
>> Department of Biology
>> University of Maryland
>> College Park, MD 20742-4415
>> [email protected]
>>
>> Principal Investigator
>> Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory
>> PO Box 519
>> Crested Butte, CO 81224
>>
