I am not sure if it is a good decision for this to be my first post on ecology
but I feel I have to say something.
Please do not make insensitive assumptions about peoples' life circumstances.
As a single woman with no children, being single with no children was not
really a life choice. It is
Isn't the issue here really simply that, generally, (I realize there are same
sex couples and single parents but lets set that aside for now) one man and one
woman choose to have children. The woman should not have a disproportionately
more negative effect on her career than the man. This gets a
NSF is not terribly concerned with the "furtherance of science".
If they were, many many policies would be drastically different, including:
1) They would forbid any institution from being eligible for NSF funds
who engages in spousal hiring or any other form of nepotism. Usage of
any funding
As an early-career ecologist who's male and childless by choice, I'm
definitely not the "target demographic" for the birth/adoption portion of
the CLB -- and yet I'm going to benefit a LOT from it.
It's already been pointed out that helping cover employees' or
collaborators' absences benefits the
I assume you are not serious.
What people who find fault with NSF doing this fail to acknowledge is that NSF
is responsible for the furtherance of science. Projects suffer when
participants must be away for family matters. So science suffers, and NSF
money goes to waste. By providing PIs sma
What other choices that might "compete with their professional career,"
would warrant such an opportunity, Michael? The proposal here looks a
bit half (if that) baked.
Few other "choices" invoke such a huge emotional, financial -- and LEGAL
-- burden as parenthood. Being a caregiver for old
