There has been a bit of talk on Twitter and among my colleagues IRL and online about work-life balance in academia. See for example this excellent post by @TheNewPI. The gist of it is: is a normal 40h work week, which is the norm everywhere, feasible for academics? I think the answer is yes and no. It really depends on what your goals and priorities are. If you really want to develop an independent research program as PI of a lab at a decent research university or institute, then I don’t think sticking to a strict 9-5 schedule will serve you very well. The more time (up to a certain limit) you put into your work, the better you will become, the more you will accomplish. However, I think there are a few points worth elaborating on here. Continue reading
I am sure you’ve heard the buzz about preprints in biology. Preprints have been a thing for a long time now in physics and math. The idea is that you submit your paper in a more or less finished form to a server called arXiv (pronounced archive), where their manuscript only undergoes very cursory approval but no formal peer review. It is then available for anyone to read and comment on. Biology took much longer to accept preprints, but the movement has been gaining momentum in recent years. There is a biological arXiv twin called biorXiv, and it has become very popular, especially among computational biologists.There are many advantages of preprints. First, you get to get your story out quicker and people can find out about it sooner. Continue reading
The report of the most recent National Science Centre council meeting is up on the NCN website. The most interesting piece of info for me was some new details of the upcoming SONATINA call for proposals. The SONATINA grant replaces the now officially burried FUGA grant, which used to be addressed exclusively to “mobile” postdoctoral fellows, who changed institutions and voivodships and wanted to seek better career prospects away from the institution where they did their PhDs. This worked out great for my new postdoc Łukasz, who got one of the FUGA grants and was able to move from Łódź to Warsaw. The SONATINA is different in many ways, but in some ways also resembles the FUGA grant. Continue reading
Just the other day I was reading a Nature opinion piece on deliberate research misconduct: how it affects the reproducibility science, and what we can do about it. The authors proposed a number of solutions, but most of them focused on punishing the perpetrators. Punishments should be more severe, they argued, the PIs should be held accountable for their trainees’ misconduct, and institutions should be forced to give back money gained by research dishonesty. I’m not sure I agree with this solution. Continue reading
The road of an academic scientist is long and tortuous. Many pitfalls await the hapless young researcher, so any advice is always a great bonus. I have been relying on Twitter and a bunch of great blogs (see my blogroll) to get my fix of do’s and don’ts in academia, and it has served me well – I now have the coveted group leader position at a major university in Poland and I use the blogroll as a constant source of information and support in my ivory tower woes. One of my favorite blogs has always been xykademiqz, written by a successful mid-career group leader in the physical sciences. The blog is filled with great advice and down-to-earth musings on the “human” side of research. That’s why I was really excited when I heard that xykademiqz is coming out with a book, which, as I understand, is a collection of her most successful blog entries organized in a way that will make for an interesting narrative. The book is here, and I got a glimpse of it as an early access reader. Let me tell you this – it is pure gold! Continue reading
Recently, the Council of Young Researchers (Rada Młodych Naukowców) organized a debate on the career prospects of young scientists in Poland. There were a great many things that were discussed, but I would like to highlight a few things that I found interesting. The first observation I had even before the debate started was how few young scientists actually participated. The vast majority of the people who spoke could hardly be qualified as “young scientists”. The second observation that I must admit worried me quite a bit was how few women were represented. I didn’t count them, but I suspect that they represented roughly 10%-15% of the participants. Given the fact that women represent more than half of Polish scientists, and that the representation among young scientists is probably even higher, this is very worrying indeed. Now let me focus on some selected points of the debate. Continue reading
If you are following science-related topics on twitter, you are probably aware of the recent proposal by Ron Germain to reform the NIH funding system so that the evaluation focus is on the person getting the funds rather than the project getting funded (also see his op-ed in Cell). For new investigators, he proposes to give every institution funds commensurate with what they are getting right now from the NIH and let them distribute the funds to their new hires at their discretion. Renewals would be based on performance, but again there would be no precise “projects” being evaluated. Ron’s proposed solution to the woes of biomedical research have created quite a stir on the Interwebs. Drugmonkey has a huge discussion on his blog (here and here), with most voices strongly opposed to Ron’s ideas. Putting ad hominem’s aside I think the argument really boils down to a rather simple cost-benefit calculation. Continue reading
Today I went to a talk by a well known Polish physicist Prof. Tomasz Dietl on whether the scientific environment in Poland is conducive to the making of important discoveries. Prof. Dietl argued that it is, but also discussed a number of obstacles that hinder scientific progress. First, he pointed out that the most common metrics currently used in evaluations of research in Poland, i.e. the total number of papers and citations, does not reflect the potential to make significant progress in science. Instead, he proposed an alternative metric – the ability of an institution or a country to attract funding from the European Research Council (ERC). Continue reading
Just as the US and Western Europe are undergoing a severe research funding crisis, the Polish government is making plans for expanding spending on science. This is very optimistic news for Polish scientists. Already, we have a relatively decent funding rate in the biomedical sciences (~20% of all applications get funded). What I think is glaringly obvious, though, is that we lack the infrastructure to put this money to good use. Lab space is sparse, especially in R&D hubs, such as Warsaw or Cracow, and what is there is usually located in obsolete old buildings that are badly equipped to do modern science. In my opinion, we also need to increase the ability of Polish researchers to scale the gap between academia and industry. We must promote enterpreneurship, so that the money invested in science can be recouped in an innovative knowledge-based economy (more on that by our colleague at the Nencki, Marcin Ciuk).
The plans to increase R&D expenditures have been due for a long time. By percentage gross domestic product, our budgetary R&D spendings place us in 34th place worldwide (27th place by total spending), far behind our neighbor the Czech Republic and even behind Ukraine, Turkey, and Iran. According to the secretary at the Ministry of Science and Higher Education, Prof. Marek Ratajczak, the plans are to ramp up R&D spending to 2% GDP until 2020. This would be a huge increase and a very welcome boost for the Polish research community. It would also place us on approximately equal ground (by %GDP spending) with the Netherlands, Canada, China or the UK. What we should keep in mind, though, is the tragic consequences of a similar doubling of biomedical research spending in the US. Hopefully, the ministry has a plan on how to avoid the pitfalls of the boom-bust cycle hitting the US right now.
The blogo- and twittersphere, as well as scientific journals, and even popular media outlets are all rife with discussions on the fate of young researchers in academia. The central problem is that there are way more people with advanced degrees (PhD or equivalent) then there are jobs for them in the academic sector. A large fraction of people who went on to do a PhD are trained to do science and want to continue doing it after getting their degree, but the jobs simply aren’t there. To make matters worse, work outside of academia isn’t much easier to find. Consolidations in the industry have made the abundance of jobs in pharma/biotech a thing of the past, so people with very high qualifications and extensive knowledge are stuck applying for positions that have zero connection to their past experience. Continue reading