tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post1140476398397155694..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: Ageism in ScienceLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-66534961122824351202007-01-26T12:09:00.000-05:002007-01-26T12:09:00.000-05:00You are assuming that the only legitimate way for ...<em>You are assuming that the only legitimate way for a university science Professor to conduct scholarly activity is by having a large grant and running a lab.</em><br /><br />Actually, some research could probably get by without a lab or grants. Pretty much the main use of grants in phylogeny/bioinformatics (if you aren't generating your own data) is to pay the salaries/stipends of postdocs and grad students. <br /><br />But if you use sequences out of GenBank and do the work without the aid of postdocs or grad students, you could do some interesting (& publishable) work without a grant. There's a lot of interesting questions that could be addressed just using publicly available data.<br /><br /><em>But that's only a minor part of the problem. We currently have a system where mid-career scientists lose their grants in favor of young investigators. If we fire all the 50 year olds who lose their grants then who in their right mind would choose such a career in the first place?</em><br /><br />Well, 1) I don't think anyone is suggesting firing anyone; I've probably suggested the most extreme suggestion -- moving the non-active researchers to a lectureship. Most people are simply talking about offering incentives for early retirement and the like.<br /><br />2) Most jobs (even scientific ones) have no such thing as "tenure" and yet people still take them. For example, I work at a research institute where even the PIs have no tenure. Yet, whenever there's a job opening we have plenty of people giving interview seminars.<br /><br /><em>Under such a system, you start making a decent salary when you're 35 years old and by the time you're 50 you don't have a job. Is that what you want?</em><br /><br />Well, under the current system an awful lot of people that I've known (including people that I consider to have been better scientists than myself) have gotten stuck in the postdoc loop and finally left science in disgust after their third postdoc stint because they can't find a faculty position -- I'm not sure how that's any better.<br /><br /><em>Why are we discriminating on the basis of age?</em><br /><br />We shouldn't. Discriminating on the basis of productivity ... well, that's different.Jonathan Badgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04921990886076027719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-91806271582879941182007-01-26T10:22:00.000-05:002007-01-26T10:22:00.000-05:00Jonathan Badger, you are making an assumption that...Jonathan Badger, you are making an assumption that I challenge.<br /><br />You are assuming that the only legitimate way for a university science Professor to conduct scholarly activity is by having a large grant and running a lab.<br /><br />You are using the world "research" in a very restrictive way and that distorts your view of the situation.<br /><br />But that's only a minor part of the problem. We currently have a system where mid-career scientists lose their grants in favor of young investigators. If we fire all the 50 year olds who lose their grants then who in their right mind would choose such a career in the first place?<br /><br />Under such a system, you start making a decent salary when you're 35 years old and by the time you're 50 you don't have a job. Is that what you want?<br /><br />Why are we discriminating on the basis of age?Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-65716856278190433862007-01-25T16:08:00.000-05:002007-01-25T16:08:00.000-05:00What are you advocating? Are you saying that anyon...<em>What are you advocating? Are you saying that anyone who loses a grant should be fired?</em><br /><br />Well, not fired and not *just* for "losing a grant" -- like being unemployed, being grantless may be a temporary situation soon to be remedied. But why should someone who was hired to do research as part of their job still keep the same job years after they've ceased to be active researchers?<br /><br /><br /><em>Are there no other ways of being scholarly if you don't have a grant? Are there no other ways of contributing the university?</em><br /><br />Of course there are other ways. Many people teach, for example. But a young person who only teaches is not generally offered a professorship at a major research university. Instead, they are offered position as a lecturer or something similar (at a smaller salary and without the security of tenure). It would seem only fair that a professor who has become in essence a lecturer to become one formally and resign the greater security and pay given to a professor. Equal positions for equal work.<br /><br /><em>You are illustrating the very thing that I oppose. I do not have a research grant and I do not run a laboratory. Do you think I should step aside? If so, please explain why.</em><br /><br />Well, if no longer have laboratory space, I'll admit that you aren't as bad as some other older scientists I know (who kept their decades unused lab of dusty glassware tied up until the day they retired). But still, if you retired, wouldn't your department probably replace you by an young assistant professor who would be expected to do research?Jonathan Badgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04921990886076027719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-87243205994168189742007-01-25T13:11:00.000-05:002007-01-25T13:11:00.000-05:00Jonathan Badger says,
In part this is because of ...Jonathan Badger says,<br /><br /><i>In part this is because of the tenure system. Yes, tenure protects radical researchers from oppression; but an awful lot of researchers take tenure as an excuse *not* to continue to be active researchers. And that *does* hurt science. If someone stops doing research, they should step aside for others.</i><br /><br />What are you advocating? Are you saying that anyone who loses a grant should be fired? Are there no other ways of being scholarly if you don't have a grant? Are there no other ways of contributing the university? <br /><br />You are illustrating the very thing that I oppose. I do not have a research grant and I do not run a laboratory. Do you think I should step aside? If so, please explain why.Larry Moranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-55381530911081436512007-01-25T11:07:00.000-05:002007-01-25T11:07:00.000-05:00While there certainly are exceptions to the rule t...While there certainly are exceptions to the rule that older scientists are less productive (it has been attested by Crick's co-authors that he was editing a paper on his deathbed, for example), do you really doubt that older people *in general* do less science? <br /><br />In part this is because of the tenure system. Yes, tenure protects radical researchers from oppression; but an awful lot of researchers take tenure as an excuse *not* to continue to be active researchers. And that *does* hurt science. If someone stops doing research, they should step aside for others.Jonathan Badgerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04921990886076027719noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-2613655561683405842007-01-24T21:02:00.000-05:002007-01-24T21:02:00.000-05:00It also occurs to me that an older researcher is l...It also occurs to me that an older researcher is likely to be more seasoned, more likely to know the hidden traps in his/her profession, which is an asset in itself.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com