Ireland's need for scientists

buddhi

If I were a top level scientist I would move to Singapore. There I could communicate with a large pool of colleges in the same field and participate in at least few start ups. Law of attraction.

Dublin will have to become center of creativity in a first place, costs aside.

Business will follow... I am not sure. If universities transform themselves then its more likely to happen. As I said previously in America universities are good at promoting themselves and their graduates. Good at attracting private funds, inspiring people and corporations to give and invest.


With love,

Buddhi.

luckat

But none of this will happen just by the politicians standing up in front of voters and saying it oughta. It needs funds.

ISAW

luckat wrote:

I keep reading that the Government is worried sick about Ireland's need for scientists and high-end technologists.

But I've recently been talking to some people in universities, who tell me that - due to lack of government funding - science departments are losing the most talented people, because they can't offer tenure to lecturers.

Is this the most stupid political action ever?

You have been talking to academics. If you talked to administratord they would also tell you they need more money but they wouldnt tell you their budgets have doubled under the current government.

The thing is that lecturerers are teachers of undergraduates. They may also be involved in post doctoral research and in training post graduates and this is the knowledge based element of their job. But THAT is usually funded by Science Foundation Ireland; Programme for Research in Third Level Instuitutes; EU Framework Programmes etc. But there is also business research and development.

And why aren't there huge full-expenses scholarships offered to talented science and technology students, and help into jobs, if we want to foster that?

eh there are. try a search on "post doctoral fellows" or "fullbright" or "graduate AND scholarships". as regards jobs and business FAS Enterpriose Ireland and Forbairt have roles to play in that. It isnt just for universities.

One of the questions I'll be asking of politicians on my doorstep.

well the answer is already there if you are interested. Forfas website probably has it.

As the high-tech firms close and leave for eastern Europe and the jobs flood out, I wonder if the current government are listening to what Moore McDowell said on the radio the other day: "It's a good time to lose an election."

Please tell me the amount of jobs in Ireland in 1986 1996 and 2006 and how there is current a "flood" of high tech jobs leaving the country?

r3nu4l

ISAW wrote:

The thing is that lecturerers are teachers of undergraduates. They may also be involved in post doctoral research and in training post graduates and this is the knowledge based element of their job. But THAT is usually funded by Science Foundation Ireland; Programme for Research in Third Level Instuitutes; EU Framework Programmes etc. But there is also business research and development.

The problem with all funding for academic research is that it is so transient. A 3 year contract here, a 5 year contract there, 2 years next time and no properly laid out career structure. When you reach a certain level of experience you are out-competed by others with less experience who are willing to take a lower salary or in many cases a research grant stipulates a salary that is far below what a highly experienced person deserves. You then end up with a situation where there are about 200-300 post-docs around the country all looking for the next Principal Investigator position to turn up and even the vast majority of those are tied to short-term contracts! There is nothing to encourage a post-doc to stay in academic research but then where else are they to go?

ISAW wrote:

eh there are. try a search on "post doctoral fellows" or "fullbright" or "graduate AND scholarships". as regards jobs and business FAS Enterpriose Ireland and Forbairt have roles to play in that. It isnt just for universities.

Forbairt is the old name for Enterprise Ireland, they are the same organisation

ISAW

Cantab. wrote:

University research scientists are only part of the spectrum of requirements needed for Ireland to be that elusive "knowledge-based economy".

sadly your ar correct to some degree. Business spends little in comparison. In the Us the spending to GDp is about 3 per cent but business spending (BERD) is a t least half of that. You have to remember however that aerospace and military spending are big elements of US Rand Dand almost zero of ours (well we do have an Irish space industry employing a few thousand people)

On university researchers: there is little financial motivation to persue such a research career. The salary of a post-doc researcher is ~€40k and is a temporary contract.

Admin and lecturers start at around that.
senior lecturers are 80 -90 k and professors 120k
http://www.publicjobs.ie/cand/default.asp?JobID=2344&hdnJobID=1427&hdndest=JOBDETAILS&hdnLang=&hdnSource=HOME&hdnmode=VIEW&hdnauth=admin&hdnGUID=

for example wil tell you a senior scientist earns From €62,068.00 To €78,801.00

here is the job spec (easy covered by a PhD with some research experience
Even a M.Sc with a good deal of admin could probably do it.the spec is only for a B.Sc.) :
Degree in which Biochemistry, Chemistry, Biology, Zoology or Microbiology was taken as a subject or an option in the final examination or an equivalent qualification,

Have satisfactory relevant technical training and experience, and

Have satisfactory administrative experience

Also there is no pension and no VHI (unless you pay for it yourself). In the university that I studied at, the plumbers have better pay and better conditions than the post-doc researchers. The reality of modern Ireland I guess.

How long did they spend learning plumbing to get to 40k a year? actually you do hot a point. We also need technicans and engineers and should pay for them too. 40k a year isnt bad money.

Perhaps this is part of the reason why the most politically aware people end up becoming lecturers and committee members, leading to massive in-fighting and egos. Once you get tenureship, it's into drift wood mode: prance about in front of a room full of undergraduates, hire some foreign post-docs to do your work for you, be continually on the lookout for the next junket to lands afar, and sign yourself a nice expenses cheque regularly: the reality of academia in Ireland.

Yes, while synical you have a point. Tenute should involve accountability to some degree. Staff could be given say half pay and given the rest and other bonuses based on hours teaching and researching and so on. But now we are into motivating academic staff and not just about creating knowledge though the two are connected.

One way to motivate academics would be to cut the admin in half and cut the salary of the university presidents who now want 350,000 a year. then put all that money into funds for teaching and research which academics can bid for . so they will get the same salary but have big add on budgets.

In fact what has been happening is the opposite of that. "Restructuring" programmes claim to decentralise central funds but actually have added another administrative tier in the local department,school or faculty. rather than "streamilining" they have added administrative fat which soaks up more money.

You're wasting your time/life in university research (unless you are of that rare breed of person who genuinely loves what you do and don't care about money/personal wealth - I've yet to meet any such person).

Well I have sat on various committees/attended workshops conference and trained with such people. I have never suggested they are wasting their time nor have I believed it. Even the ones who went into administration.

ISAW

Cantab. wrote:

University research scientists are only part of the spectrum of requirements needed for Ireland to be that elusive "knowledge-based economy".

sadly your ar correct to some degree. Business spends little in comparison. In the Us the spending to GDp is about 3 per cent but business spending (BERD) is a t least half of that. You have to remember however that aerospace and military spending are big elements of US Rand Dand almost zero of ours (well we do have an Irish space industry employing a few thousand people)

On university researchers: there is little financial motivation to persue such a research career. The salary of a post-doc researcher is ~€40k and is a temporary contract.

Admin and lecturers start at around that.
senior lecturers are 80 -90 k and professors 120k
http://www.publicjobs.ie/cand/default.asp?JobID=2344&hdnJobID=1427&hdndest=JOBDETAILS&hdnLang=&hdnSource=HOME&hdnmode=VIEW&hdnauth=admin&hdnGUID=

for example wil tell you a senior scientist earns From €62,068.00 To €78,801.00

here is the job spec (easy covered by a PhD with some research experience
Even a M.Sc with a good deal of admin could probably do it.the spec is only for a B.Sc.) :
Degree in which Biochemistry, Chemistry, Biology, Zoology or Microbiology was taken as a subject or an option in the final examination or an equivalent qualification,

Have satisfactory relevant technical training and experience, and

Have satisfactory administrative experience

Also there is no pension and no VHI (unless you pay for it yourself). In the university that I studied at, the plumbers have better pay and better conditions than the post-doc researchers. The reality of modern Ireland I guess.

How long did they spend learning plumbing to get to 40k a year? actually you do hot a point. We also need technicans and engineers and should pay for them too. 40k a year isnt bad money.

Perhaps this is part of the reason why the most politically aware people end up becoming lecturers and committee members, leading to massive in-fighting and egos. Once you get tenureship, it's into drift wood mode: prance about in front of a room full of undergraduates, hire some foreign post-docs to do your work for you, be continually on the lookout for the next junket to lands afar, and sign yourself a nice expenses cheque regularly: the reality of academia in Ireland.

Yes, while synical you have a point. Tenute should involve accountability to some degree. Staff could be given say half pay and given the rest and other bonuses based on hours teaching and researching and so on. But now we are into motivating academic staff and not just about creating knowledge though the two are connected.

One way to motivate academics would be to cut the admin in half and cut the salary of the university presidents who now want 350,000 a year. then put all that money into funds for teaching and research which academics can bid for . so they will get the same salary but have big add on budgets.

In fact what has been happening is the opposite of that. "Restructuring" programmes claim to decentralise central funds but actually have added another administrative tier in the local department,school or faculty. rather than "streamilining" they have added administrative fat which soaks up more money.

You're wasting your time/life in university research (unless you are of that rare breed of person who genuinely loves what you do and don't care about money/personal wealth - I've yet to meet any such person).

Well I have sat on various committees/attended workshops conference and trained with such people. I have never suggested they are wasting their time nor have I believed it. Even the ones who went into administration.

ISAW

luckat wrote:

Yes. Until we start putting big money in the way of hard-edge research, there's no real incentive to pursue a scientific career.

We need to fund both abstract research and practical research, to put people in touch with companies and with the international scientific community, to bring European and international scientific bodies to Ireland, and to found scholarships that will bring the most brilliant science students to Ireland to study - and turn the most brilliant Irish students to science.

The politicians seem to think that lip service alone will save us. No, boys, no.

Let us get some terminology on the subject (I have tiied to introduce SFI, PRTLI, EUFP etc. in other posts)

"basic" "fundamental" or "blue skies" research is about finding new knowledge.
"applied" research is about developing a product in the market place after a prototype or patent already exists.

"targeted basic" is a gray are in between which SFI EU FP etc. seek to influence.

Also we need to broaden the research culture and the general culture to more appreciate art, engineering, technology sport etc.

Now Ireland HAS DONE much of the above you claim we "need".

The British Association coming to Ireland for example. EU membership of CORDIS. etc.

ISAW

r3nu4l wrote:

QFT! :mad:

After my PhD, I did a 3 year post-doc (Biology) ...

If Ireland wants to improve scientifically then we must attract far more research and development centres. The government points towards large pharma companies investment as a sign of commitment to science but in fact these companies must bring research and development facilities to Ireland not simply manufacturing!

Yep. you have my vote here. Post docs need to be kept here. especially Irish ones. what is the point of paYING ALL THAT MONEY TO EDUCATE YOU ONLY FOR YOU TO LEAVE THE COUNTRY? But this is where BERD comes in. Surely as the greenest country in the world and surrounded by Water and with an agricultural and fishing culture and history and agri business that have developed to PLC and even TNC (trans national corp) levels there should not be a big problem in facilitating biotechnology as a linchpin of the economy.

Indeed it should be up there with pharmachem and IS/IT.

ISAW

Scigaithris wrote:

Read 3 or 4 years ago (don't have a link) that Huston had established a foundation for NUIG that was related to tech and film/Fx? If so, could IT researchers find monies from them pursuing Fx R&D?

Indeed a researcher in TCD recently got a hollywood oscar for FX

http://www.tcd.ie/Communications/photo.php?headerID=537&photoID=483&galleryArchive=2007

ISAW

psi wrote:

This was debated long and hard a few months ago.

I seem to remember that.

Mind you that doesnt mean it should not be given an airing again. the "election 2007" people tried to send me over here and now it seems you think we shouldn't really go over old ground.

Basically the government being as short sighted as ever, are trying to build a portfolio as a 4th level educated country. So they fund PhD studentships galore (or at least intend to).

this is the point you made months ago! who is going over old ground now? your point was that you would prefer that money spent on post docs wasnt it?

I have no problems about funding post docs by the way but this issue is much broader and goes outside of educational establishments.

However, once you get a PhD, you're basically screwed. You're over-qualified for most industry jobs that aren't administrative and even these are few and far between.

yes but the point you made (correct me if I am wrong) is that we dont need everyone in the country to have a PhD. It is a "restricted practice" to some degree (pun intended). So if that is true you (if you are a "planned economy" buff) decide "we only need 6,000 PhDs. After that any PhDs can go elsewhere."

One thing about this is the right to education and the cultural gains. What if a housewife just wants to have a PhD? there is nothing wrong with that is there? i.e. in supplying new knowledge.
But when you say people cant get jobs with PhD what you seem to mean is "people with PhDs should get more money than other people" i.e. you put an economic value on a degree and neglect the broader implications.
A housewife has a job but it happens doesnt get paid much for what is one of the most important jobs we have.

Anyway back to the "screwed with no job" problem. Is this the government's problem only? Should the state say "we have 10,000 plumbers we have to create jobs for all of them"? Or should the plumbing or construction business be prepared to take them on?

At the same time I have some sympathy for your point. We should invest in that which encourages educated people to contribute their effort. But even in the micro level of the third level institution this is true. About 15 years ago I met a researcher from Lisbon Theresa Lago who planned for Portugal to produce 15 PhDs a year in astronomy. why 15? Because she was confident that was what Portugal fund in research in that field.

As others have pointed out career prospects for PhDs are laughable and there is little in the way tenure track (admittedly there are a few grants but they're generally gold dust and oddly usually go to the same groups of people).

Tenure in politics isnt much better! but is it worse than having no qualifications at all?

The govenment has set up a system where we produce lots of PhDs who either leave the field, go into desk jobs or, in the case of the best ones, go abroad.

NO! The STATE did that! The government has been trying to CUT public service! Maybe Labour in government would increase admin or GP or SF. But FF or the PDs and probably FG wouldnt be into that I dont think.

In the UK and US and in the major European research institutes the focus is on postdocs - you will have a research driven lab with several postdoctoral fellows and a few trainee PhD students. This means the research stays at a high level, the PhDs get trained and grants keep coming.

In Ireland, you have the exact opposite. You get labs full of students blundering through work with one or two disenchanted postdocs trying to get some decent work done while training the students.

I dont agree. and postgraduates are the engines of research. It is the masters and PhD students who actually DO the donkey work. But i would like to see a comparison of numbers of postgrads and postdocs per PI (Principal Investigator) for some UK/US projects compared to Ireland. You might well be correct. You haven proven it to me though.

The Irish life and physical sciences funding agencies need a right kick up the ass if Ireland is ever going to amount to anything in the science

Noever the less the number of publications from Ireland have at least DOUBLED over the last ten years! In fact Ireland leads the world in how many new publications they have produced realted to even in the eighties.

Furthermore look at figure 4 here: (it is a futures research paper)
http://www.tpac.gatech.edu/public_papers/hti-90-93-96-99-paper-dbl-spac-oct7.pdf

r3nu4l

What are you on about? In most laboratories I have worked in it's the post-docs who train the PhD students but they still have their own projects to work on and do so far more efficiently than most PhD students because they have the experience and knowledge to do so.

ISAW wrote:

I dont agree. and postgraduates are the engines of research. It is the masters and PhD students who actually DO the donkey work.

That statement alone shows shocking ignorance of the true situation in laboratories, never mind the fact that you think Forbairt still exists and is a different organisation to Enterprise Ireland.

How do you expect me or other posters to think that anything else you have written is valid?

ISAW

Wicknight wrote:

My uncle worked at one of Ireland's largest universities quite high up for a few years. He said trying to get money off the government to attract the best of the best in research scientists in science, computers, engineering etc was like trying to get blood from a stone.

Maybe he can explain how the funding for Universities has DOUBLED over the last decade? Must be a lot of bloody stones in his college.

He contrasted this to places in American and Europe that are throwing money at the best scientists to get them to come, and as such are build up entire industries around this research

you must have missed "Technology Foresight"
http://www.forfas.ie/publications/_category/enterprisestrategy.html


page 2 of http://www.forfas.ie/publications/forfas060118/webopt/forfas060118_herd_report_webopt.pdf
1998 2000 2002 2004
HERD current prices (MEuro) 203.7 238.1 322.3 491.7

Wow that ISNT teaching and libraries and education funding. that is JUST SCIENCE RESEARCH IN UNIVERSITIES. From 204 million to 492 million in
six years!

He said that the government (this was about 10 years ago) or the development bodies set up such as the IDA, just didn't get the idea that you aren't just getting the one scientists you pay vasts amount of money for, you are getting the entire ecosystem that comes with a leading scientists, his/her research and their teams.

But where did his pals put the extra 288 million they got in six years? Surely that must have been spent on some science research? Your uncle isnt in admin is he? My god they don't even know where they spent the money now!

But the government of the day was just full of idiots who could not see beyond getting re-elected.

all governments are full of people who want to get re elected. They are certainly not idiots. Nor are self serving administrators who maintain empires and pay lip service to "appreciation of the broad community in quality and equality"

Good to see that things have changed :rolleyes:

have they?

ISAW

r3nu4l wrote:

What are you on about? In most laboratories I have worked in ...

i.e. in you personal experience.

That statement alone shows shocking ignorance of the true situation in laboratories,

based on your opinion based on your experience? as opposed to me actually asking people to back up their comments with some samples of labs and the PI / post doc./ post grad ratio.

never mind the fact that you think Forbairt still exists and is a different organisation to Enterprise Ireland.

you will note i referred to "technology Foresight " in my comments. That doesnt exist now either hence the confusion. Indeed the IDA has also been mentioned.
I have also referred to FORFAS several times and given references from them.

Please dont attempt to argue from authority or look down your nose on others. High and mighty "I know about this you have no experience of it at ll" will do you no good in this forum or in this debate in particular. You may have a PhD but most of the people you are trying to convince probably dont have one. Nor does a PhD qualify you to have authority over others on science funding. In fact it only shows you have knowledge and experience of a certqain level in a certain field. Your PhD isnt in political funding of research is it?

How do you expect me or other posters to think that anything else you have written is valid?

confused?
And by "valid" you mean?

If they dont believe me they need only look at the evidence i supply and see whether it supports my position. If I dont supply the evidence they can ask for it. I really dont think I need supply evidence that more people are employed or the GDP is greater now than ten years ago do I?

Again you are indulging in casting Tropaeolaceae at me. Please refrain or ASK for evidence for any claims I make.

Comments like "everything you say could be a lie" dont really contribute to the debate.

"Can you support that" might be better. You should try it but who am i to tell you what to do?

r3nu4l

ISAW wrote:

i.e. in you personal experience.

Which is more than you seem to have. How can you talk about something with authority if you have no experience of it?

ISAW wrote:

based on your opinion based on your experience? as opposed to me actually asking people to back up their comments with some samples of labs and the PI / post doc./ post grad ratio.

Again in my last lab, there were 3 post-docs and three PhD students but numbers do not show the true picture. It takes a first year PhD student months to achieve the same results as a post-doc can achieve in 2 weeks. Fact. Only a final-year PhD student can equate themselves to a work rate level similar to a post-doc.

ISAW wrote:

Please dont attempt to argue from authority or look down your nose on others...

I'm not trying to look down my nose at anybody but you clearly don't know what you are talking about so I can't take you seriously. Anyone who has worked in an academic research laboratory for a number of years will see the flaws in your arguement that I pointed out above. I reiterate that I'm not looking down at you I just can't take your arguments seriously when you are so clueless.

ISAW wrote:

If they dont believe me they need only look at the evidence i supply and see whether it supports my position. If I dont supply the evidence they can ask for it. I really dont think I need supply evidence that more people are employed or the GDP is greater now than ten years ago do I?

No, science funding has increased dramatically which seems great when you look at it in terms of € numbers and publications etc. but [grinding my own ax here]I have a rake of publications as do many people I know yet it hasn't helped us in terms of a structured career path has it?[/ax grinding]

Throwing a lot of money at short-term grants is not the way to go. Development of a career structure allows people to achieve more, keep them motivated and keep them in the country. A high level of very experienced and motivated research staff does make companies consider a country as a potential R&D hub.

ISAW wrote:

Again you are indulging in casting Tropaeolaceae at me.

I'm not in the habit of throwing vegetation at anybody

ISAW wrote:

Comments like "everything you say could be a lie" dont really contribute to the debate.

So pointing out that you some of your arguments are flawed and that you can't be seen to talk in a position of authority because you have no experience of the subject to hand does not contribute to the argument?

When I see you claiming something as fact and I know it is wrong then I can't assume that anything else you say is correct in an area that I am not fully versed in. Therefore I must conclude that perhaps you don't know as much as you seem to claim to know and take everything you say with a pinch of salt. I'm not saying that you are lying, I'm saying that you may not be in a position to talk the talk with authority.

ISAW

transylman wrote:

I thought the government was trying to do something to encourage a knowledge based economy. Didn't they set up that MIT technology centre in Dublin?

Touché!
Whether intentional or not this is one of the most pertinent comments on the subject yet!
btw
Has anyone seen the plans for Discovery station?
Sorry anachronism again. DISCovery was a plan 15 years ago.

I meant "Exploration Station" opposite Heuston Station.

ISAW

r3nu4l wrote:

Which is more than you seem to have. How can you talk about something with authority if you have no experience of it?

I thought i warned you about "argument from authority"?

Anyway according to you a male gynecologist or midwife shouldn't talk to a women who has had several children because he doesnt have personal experience of child birth? Or a judge shouldn't sentence someone for murder because the judge hasn't actually tried to kill someone? In fact The Minister has no PhD in physics but still makes decisions to do with SFI. As do Department Secretaries, Assistants, Principal Officers etc.

Again in my last lab, there were 3 post-docs and three PhD students but numbers do not show the true picture.

No they don't but at least when we have a population to examine they will show something. As opposed to your personal opinion which while I value it weighs little against Assistant Principals and secretaries and the plethora of other policy makers who make the decisions and DONT have PhD's in you field! Or in any field for that matter. In fact now they have a doctorate all to themselves which is worth much more than a PhD. It is called a DGov. and it costs about 60k in fees alone! Of course because it is to do with their job the state will pick up the bill - which means joe and josephine taxpayer!

It takes a first year PhD student months to achieve the same results as a post-doc can achieve in 2 weeks. Fact.

careful what you cite as "fact". You are generalising. But if you mean that "a post doc in the same field can cover at least four times the work load in the same time as a PhD student" while I am tempted to ask you to prove it I really want to know why you woudl give them the same work to do? I thought you wanted the PhD to learn something and not have the post doc do the work for them? In fact management is all about getting others to do things for you which you could probably do quicker yourself. so whats the point? PI are mis managing resources by getting managers to do supervisory jobs? What?

Only a final-year PhD student can equate themselves to a work rate level similar to a post-doc.

So? Whats your point?

I'm not trying to look down my nose at anybody but you clearly don't know what you are talking about so I can't take you seriously. Anyone who has worked in an academic research laboratory for a number of years will see the flaws in your arguement that I pointed out above.

What flaws did you point out? Anachronisms of calling Forfas "Forbairt"? Please dont refer to "anyone" and at the same time claim some sort of occult knowledge of doing research. Not anyone can be a professional footballer but anyone can appreciate what it involves. A footballer may say "you dont understand the sacrifices I made or how hard the job is" but it isnt he who decides how much he is paid. He can also tell you that he knew litle as an apprentice or even when he began in the premiership but that doesnt mean he can tell the manager or the chairman (either of whom might never have played professionally) how to run the club! Does it?

I reiterate that I'm not looking down at you I just can't take your arguments seriously when you are so clueless.

yes you reitterate without showing actual evidence where what YOU claim is correct and showing anyting I claim to be incorrect! If you itterate enough you miught get others to believe you unsupported argument form authority but I really don't think they will unless you proivide some facts. "Facts" by the way are not "I know this because I worked there". Any amount of midwives can say things like things like this. when they produce a report showing increased infant mortality for example then that is a wholly different matter. Or when the club record shows a player is scoring 30 goals a season they might consider his or whoevers change in training regimes.

No, science funding has increased dramatically which seems great when you look at it in terms of € numbers and publications etc.

As opposed to what? how do you measure science funding? How do you measure funding without using a currency?

but [grinding my own ax here]I have a rake of publications as do many people I know yet it hasn't helped us in terms of a structured career path has it?[/ax grinding]

Depends. I know people in the arts and economics with serious international cred publications books etc. many of them get senior lectureships and get parked. to advance one would have to go into academic politics. Many of them dont want to. Likewise in science. Ireland has most of its research science done in academic circles.
But now we are into another issue. Whether universities should be teaching institutes and we should have separate postgrad training or post doc research institutes. Professionalise the science base. Similar to medicine. Then many scientists would be uposet because they lose out on the public pay bill pension etc. Many other younger ones probably wouldnt because they have yet to get the fat jobs.

Younger people usually are more radical they have nothing to lose. Older people are more conservative they have nothing to gain!

But even given the above dare I say "restructuring" it may make little difference for the national economy. I think it probably would make a difference but the decision is a political one and not a "scientific" one.

Throwing a lot of money at short-term grants is not the way to go.

What money? what grants? I thought I pointed out TF? About 15 years ago scientists clamoured for money. the TF excercise was done looking at 2010 and the investment started about ten years ago. that is a fifteen year plan! HUGE foresight for government. and NOW they have "Beyond 2010" Agenda 21 and the Lisbon Agenda to boot.
So i wasnt referring to short tem grants. I was pointing to an increase in funding as opposed to the dearth which is claimed!

Development of a career structure allows people to achieve more, keep them motivated and keep them in the country.

I wholly agree. But why funded only by the public purse?

A high level of very experienced and motivated research staff does make companies consider a country as a potential R&D hub.

Indeed it does. But so what if they are not prepared to actually DO research in that "hub" as opposed to transfer priced products until the patent runs out?

I'm not in the habit of throwing vegetation at anybody

It was a reference to " casting aspersions" you are the biologist arent you?

So pointing out that you some of your arguments are flawed and that you can't be seen to talk in a position of authority because you have no experience of the subject to hand does not contribute to the argument?

Which SPECIFIC flaws in which SPECIFIC arguments? And how is not being a full time current active science researcher relevant to that? And how do you know I have no experience of the subject? In fact ALL the people who make decisions on science at the top level are NOT full time active science researchers. so somehow you think ALL the people who make policy are "flawed"?

I suppose you also think the Minister for finance should be an economics post doc and the Minister of Justice be a judge? Oddly the constitution rules the latter out. Wonder why that is? Hmmm. Don't you think there might be a confluct of interest if all the science policy makers were active researchers?
Which brings me to policy making bodies like the defunce IRSA, the RIA RDS and others who are heavily influenced by active scientists. In fact due to lobbying scientists got all that money that people seem tyo think they dont have? Im surprised people here claim that others "high up " in the system claime massive underfunding when hundreds of millions EXTRA came in over five years alone!

When I see you claiming something as fact and I know it is wrong then I can't assume that anything else you say is correct in an area that I am not fully versed in.

What did I calim as a FACT for which you have counter evidence?
Where is that evidence?

Therefore I must conclude that perhaps you don't know as much as you seem to claim to know and take everything you say with a pinch of salt.

When you actually quote what I claimed as a fact and show where it is wrong i am quite happy to admit that. where is it?

I'm not saying that you are lying, I'm saying that you may not be in a position to talk the talk with authority.

In other words YOU ARE in such a position! Clearly "argument from authority" I wont go over my last post on this point nor the points I made above save to say you do not come across to me as a footballing midwife.

Please refrain from the "I don't doubt your sincerity but you are probably niave or misinformed" type of patronising remarks. If I am wrong:

1. SHow the claim I made.
2. show evidence proving it wrong

Otherwise shut up already and get on and make your case. If science is underfunded show WHERE and HOW. thats how you can show me to be wrong. Just claiming you know about it because you work there is about as effective as Roy Keane telling Mick Mc Cartney off.

And I respect Keane and think he is doing a great job at Sunderland.

r3nu4l

ISAW wrote:

If science is underfunded show WHERE and HOW.

Rather than get into a big flame-war and pick apart your post again, I'd like to focus on this bit. Where did I claim that Science is underfunded?

I'm not claiming underfunding, I'm claiming that the people who are currently trying to make a career out of research aren't being asked by those with the money (Stage agencies and other funding bodies) how this money can be spent to encourage Scientists to stay in research. They don't ask if post-docs and other research scientists are happy with the current status of career progression or lack thereof. Post-docs and research scientists are basically ignored.

Those who already have the fat-cat jobs (Lecturing etc) are the ones who are being asked for contributions to the debate and for the most part (with a few exceptions) are happy to further their own agendas rather than think of the long-term future of scientific research and potential career structure for post-docs.

That's the real problem with Science in Ireland those who are coming up through the ranks aren't being given any hope of a change, nor are they consulted and when they do try to voice concerns they are effectively ignored.

transylman

Please stop spamming the threads with your duplicate replies ISAW.

r3nu4l

transylman wrote:

Please stop spamming the threads with your duplicate replies ISAW.

Might not be his fault. Sometimes for some reason, hitting the submit button causes a duplicate.

Other times I've noticed that the submit seems to hang so the natural temptation is to hit the button again only to find a duplicate post

I'm sure one of the mods can prune the thread if necessary as some of the posts are quite long and a duplicate just makes it worse.

/just wondering if the duplicate causes a concurrent increment in postcount?

ISAW

transylman wrote:

Please stop spamming the threads with your duplicate replies ISAW.

im am NOT spamming. look at the post count! It isnt my fault if the forum duplicates the reply. I left them up so someone might notice and do something about it.

If you have a problem with thread admin take it up with them.

ISAW

r3nu4l wrote:

Rather than get into a big flame-war and pick apart your post again, I'd like to focus on this bit.

I wouldnt! I'd rather you stood by your suggestion that i was clueless about science as it relates to economics as opposed to you who knew much better than I do. In fact I don't claim to know anything! If I calim anything and it isnt supported by evidence then you may feel free to point that out. Can you do so? also the thread is about the economics of science or "knowledge economy" or some such. note the title. If we need scientists dont you suppose that requires FUNDING them?

Where did I claim that Science is underfunded?

Hmmm. Where you stated:

Throwing a lot of money at short-term grants is not the way to go. Development of a career structure allows people to achieve more, keep them motivated and keep them in the country.

So either
1. The postdocs you want to have a career path are not being funded or
2. the money was put aside for them and was totally mios managed.

if there is another alternative please feel free to inform me. But in both case 1 and 2 above post docs are underfunded. "no career path" means no "job security" "tenure" call it what you will. And why none? Because somebody wont award a permanent CONTRACT which is most certainly because they have to PAY MONEY to the researcher.

I'm not claiming underfunding, I'm claiming that the people who are currently trying to make a career out of research aren't being asked by those with the money (Stage agencies and other funding bodies) how this money can be spent to encourage Scientists to stay in research.

I really doubt this. In fact the largesr organisation for research scientists in Ireland campaigned for funds and other structures for ten years. they had 200 researchers turn up for the earlyu AGMs. Last year less than ten people turned up to disband the company mainly because the aims had been achieved. They even gave their funds away to good causes! In my experience many of the researchers who were clamouring for funds are now too busy administrating and managing the said funds or in their labs doing research.

But gioven the IRSA are gone there is still the RIA. they have several policy advisory committees on the go. The RDS also has a role in that. CHUI (or are they the HEI now?) when not asking for 350,000 a year in their arse pocket also have a role in informing government. as do several non Entemp agencies such as the HEA Teagasc etc. who also have independent funding.

I havent looked at Forfas for a while but I am almost certain they have a plethora of such people. If the situation was so dire why couldnt you and ten others come to the IRSA AGM and you could be Chair of the IRSA now and campainging for these much needed changes? In fact the researchers had THEIR OWN BODY and didnt bother supporting it!

They don't ask if post-docs and other research scientists are happy with the current status of career progression or lack thereof. Post-docs and research scientists are basically ignored.

Due to reticence on their part. If they couldnt be bothered to get ten people to Dublin for an AGM then don't expect people to think they are bothered enough about the state of the nation.

Those who already have the fat-cat jobs (Lecturing etc) are the ones who are being asked for contributions to the debate and for the most part (with a few exceptions) are happy to further their own agendas rather than think of the long-term future of scientific research and potential career structure for post-docs.

You wouldnt happen to be a post doc would you? As it happens the peopole who did come to the IRSA AGM were just such tenured people. Very senior researchers of national/international standing who came to say that younger people werent bothered so they didn't see the point. Along with retired researchers (2) and one media/publicity related person. you could have had a national platform and a budget. why werent you there?

That's the real problem with Science in Ireland those who are coming up through the ranks aren't being given any hope of a change, nor are they consulted and when they do try to voice concerns they are effectively ignored.

Look why don't you join some other group now. I'd be happy to assist you. haw many days a month will you give over to lobbying, meetings, sticking envalopes and canvassing. Oh and the annual dinner, AGM conference. You will help on that to I suppose? We can count on you can we?

Joking aside Im serious. I can thin of two organisations right now who I can get funding for. why not join one and get active? you seem quite interested.

GuanYin

I'm not getting into the same argument with you again because basically if it goes like the last thread, you'll spend most of your posts telling us we said such and such and asking us for evidence.

Noone here has said that we're underfunded. We've questioned how the funding is being used to achieve the goal the government has proposed.

The current model churns out more PhD graduates than there are jobs available in any sector. You made the case previously about them taking jobs in other positions, such as secondary teachers - that doesn't exactly work out as a good investment in research seeing as their expertise is lost to the research community/industry.

The typical lab set up in Ireland is focused more on training than producing cutting edge science. 5 PhD students and 1 postdoc (which is about the current ratio in Irish research) do not, as you suggest, make a research engine. The postdoc, who also has to worry about their future grant source, spends as much as 50% of their time guiding the 5 PhD students. In a 4 year PhD (which is below the average time), roughly 2 years do not produce any transferrable (by which I mean into papers, grants, further studies) results.

The system that most people here would propose, would reduce the amount of graduate students drastically and using that funding to invest in postdoctoral training and research. A ratio of 3 PhD students to 2 Postdocs is likely to produce more results because the PhD students get better hands on training and the Postdocs have more time to do focused high quality research. This is the system you see in most of the cutting edge labs. Certainly in Boston you'll travel long and far before you'll find a lab full of PhD students.

Another thing that you see alot abroad (and in some of the better labs in Ireland - one lab in Trinity springs to mind where all potential PhD students must spend a year in the lab as a tech) is a required amount of time as a technician before being admitted to a PhD course. As it stands in Ireland too many people fall into a PhD studentship because they don't know what else to do and it is offered. This is not something that a true research driven country should allow. What you then get is the better more driven PhD graduates moving abroad and the disheartened ones, who aren't really all that interested, staying behind (this isn't to say that all PhD graduates who stay in Irish research are disinterested, I have worked with many very good, very driven researchers, I've also worked with some people there just milking the system).

These are just common sense ways to spend money on research if you want results. And this is not the way the money is being spent.

GuanYin

Incidently ISAW, I showed you meeting minutes and a drafted review groups report to the government, suggesting how the system should be changed. You read it and acknowledged it, now you're posting as if you haven't.

Also, the PIs can only hire people as the funding levels permit. The grants for postdocs are few and far between compared to PhDs so the blame does lie at the government level (seeing as most of the funding agencies are distributing government orginating funds).

GuanYin

ISAW wrote:

eh there are. try a search on "post doctoral fellows" or "fullbright" or "graduate AND scholarships". as regards jobs and business FAS Enterpriose Ireland and Forbairt have roles to play in that. It isnt just for universities.

How much money does Fulbright give irish graduates to conduct research in Ireland?

(I know the answer btw).

r3nu4l

ISAW, I'm already a committee member of an organisation in the UK that is trying to recruit Irish talent back to Ireland. I've enough on my plate with that but thank you anyway As you can see from all the posts written by scientists here, it's a tough job to convince them that there is any type of job security or decent pay for experienced research scientists in Ireland.

Also, I never said science in Ireland was underfunded. You've still to show where I said that. What you tried to equate earlier as my saying science is underfunded is bizarre as it clearly does not say that, if anything it says the opposite.

As for the RIA, there are loads of academics involved in that organisation and they hold the most senior positions, as I've already stated, with a few exceptions, most academics in Ireland couldn't give a toss about development of post-doc career paths and as I also said earlier when I did raise the topic at several 'post-docs meet with funding body' groups they simply refused to consider passing the message along. I was invovleed with the IRSA as well and that was a joke. Now, I'm involved with this group in the UK and we have links with EI but I remain to be convinced that there is any hope for post-docs. I would encourage Irish scientists to establish their own business or enter into biotech research firms but never to return to Ireland just for a post-doc. They'd have to be mad!

fly_agaric

psi wrote:

The govenment has set up a system where we produce lots of PhDs who either leave the field, go into desk jobs or, in the case of the best ones, go abroad.

I have to say, so true! You describe my experience [as a person who would enjoy the work, is reasonably good at it, but doesn't eat, sleep, and breath scientific research 24-7 the way people who probably have their eye on eventually becoming a Professor/leading a research group might] almost exactly.

[MOAN]Starting a research MSc because I did good in the exams, but wasn't ársed to line up a job in final year (even if I had a bog what sort of job I wanted), and didn't fancy the scratcher was the 2nd worst decision I ever made! Staying for the PhD was the worst one![/MOAN]

oscarBravo

transylman wrote:

Please stop spamming the threads with your duplicate replies ISAW.

Leave the moderating to the moderators, thanks. If you have a problem with a post, report it.

luckat

psi wrote:

How much money does Fulbright give irish graduates to conduct research in Ireland?

(I know the answer btw).

How much, PSI?

ISAW

psi wrote:

Incidently ISAW, I showed you meeting minutes and a drafted review groups report to the government, suggesting how the system should be changed. You read it and acknowledged it, now you're posting as if you haven't.

correct! I don't recall any of that. I Do recall a case being made by someone about funding for postdocs and that the PhD funding should be used for that. I assumed you made that case. I could be wrong. Which is why I asked if you did. As regards meeting minutes and reports I have no idea to what you are referring. since you are aware perhaps you can post the link to them and to where I agree with them?

Also, the PIs can only hire people as the funding levels permit. The grants for postdocs are few and far between compared to PhDs so the blame does lie at the government level (seeing as most of the funding agencies are distributing government orginating funds).

Well you are wrong about that. EU FP funding is distributed by an agency here but it does not come from the Irish government. Off the top of my head it is 30-50 per cent of all science research funding. Or maybe it was 50 until the state started HUGE investment in Rand D.

But in a wider sence why should Higher Education research be the one to blame? what about private investment BERD? SME's for example contribute ludicrously low amounts to RTDI. so you just CANT put ALL the blame on the government or even on civil service the agencies of state.

ISAW

psi wrote:

I'm not getting into the same argument with you again because basically if it goes like the last thread, you'll spend most of your posts telling us we said such and such and asking us for evidence.

So you either

1. Havent made any claims at all or
2. Havent clarified the claims you did make.

In either case why pretend a debate exists?

Noone here has said that we're underfunded. We've questioned how the funding is being used to achieve the goal the government has proposed.

If you "question how funds are being used" you are suggesting funds be eallocated in a different manner. You want to restructure the funds so that postdocs get more of them. Okay so if the overall budget is not going to change.

1. How much more would you give to post docs?
2. What are you going to cut to pay for this restructuring?

Remember this is YOUR proposal. that is why I am asking YOU to support it. so please dont claim I will say you saif something and ask you for evidence.
It is clear you are saying "FUND MORE POSTDOCS".

Since you claim the budget overall is not underfunded I am asking what you intend to cut to fund more postdocs. Is that clear?

The current model churns out more PhD graduates than there are jobs available in any sector. You made the case previously about them taking jobs in other positions, such as secondary teachers - that doesn't exactly work out as a good investment in research seeing as their expertise is lost to the research community/industry.

So you are saying the Universities should cut funding for PhD's! Okay fine. how many should we cut?

The typical lab set up in Ireland ...

I really don't know any "typical" labs. Can you show how this average is supported with figures and show how it differs compared to the UK/US/EU for example?

The system that most people here would propose, would reduce the amount of graduate students drastically and using that funding to invest in postdoctoral training and research. A ratio of 3 PhD students to 2 Postdocs is likely to produce more results because the PhD students get better hands on training and the Postdocs have more time to do focused high quality research. This is the system you see in most of the cutting edge labs. Certainly in Boston you'll travel long and far before you'll find a lab full of PhD students.

How many PhD's do you propose to cut? SAy you begin next year under the new government. I meanthis is a serious proposal and it can be taken on board. so please add some flesh to it. How many? and how many funded post docs? how do you propose to deal with contracts? Will they be allowed to teach? will they be added to college pension funds? If the funding for their lab is terminated will the state be contracted to keep them on at full pay? Can you show me where in the Us for example that research institutes have post docs on "job for life" public service contracts?

Another thing that you see alot abroad (and in some of the better labs in Ireland - one lab in Trinity springs to mind where all potential PhD students must spend a year in the lab as a tech) is a required amount of time as a technician before being admitted to a PhD course. As it stands in Ireland too many people fall into a PhD studentship because they don't know what else to do and it is offered. This is not something that a true research driven country should allow. What you then get is the better more driven PhD graduates moving abroad and the disheartened ones, who aren't really all that interested, staying behind (this isn't to say that all PhD graduates who stay in Irish research are disinterested, I have worked with many very good, very driven researchers, I've also worked with some people there just milking the system).

I wouldnt knock this either. Infact I would suggest they should also do company law (this is currently changing but they should know how to set up and fund a company) and basic cashflow/balance sheet etc. business accounting. And ties to business networks and social partners.

I come from a history of supporting third level science as the fourth level base since almost all the research was being done there. but now we have a base we need to encourage more science based SME's.
Really I would prefer to see researchers moving OUT of third level and into real buisiness. Thats why I dont see anything wrong in people doing PhDs and not moving into post doctoral research for life.

These are just common sense ways to spend money on research if you want results. And this is not the way the money is being spent.

So basically you are saying if you were the Minister you would have a policy of more technal modules for PhDs and cut funding and reallocate it to post docs?

This may indeed affect the knowledge base and improve Ireland economically but you really think that is all that is needed? Also you musr consider you bias in this. People who call for funding for post docs normally are - would you believe it - post docs! the Minister voting public civil servants etc. REALLY get turned on when the PhDs (who are about to be cut) say it is a good Idea. Or undergraduates. Or administration. Or the HEA or the farmers. While they admire their knowledge, the "daddy knows best" manner of many academics just pisses off a lot of politicians and members of the public. If you want to win a political battle you have to educate people. Not educat3e them with PhDs but educate them with an understanding of where scientific knowledge relates to the economics and culture of the country.

This hasnt happened. People seem to "know" that sports or art should be important because it is part of being Irish. They are not aware that science is too. How for example can you prove that investing in science is any good at all? where is it doing any good at all? "arent science jobs being lost" they will say. So just saying "more postdocs less PhD and make them more technical" wont really gain momentum without a broad approach.