Ireland's need for scientists

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.

GuanYin

ISAW wrote:

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?

Why cut anything? There are proposed increases, I'd change the proposition. Incidently, if you read Michael Kelly's report to IRCset you'd see that his statistics verify much of what has been said by myself and others here.

Feel free to obtain a copy.

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?

I suggest two solutions. Either gradually reduce postgraduate funding and divert it to postdoctoral funding until the positions available for postdocs are reflective of the number of PhD graduating OR keep postgraduate funding at the current level and use future available funding for postdoctoral researchers until the graduates:jobs ratios match.

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

Why ask questions you answer for me?

I don't know - there is a large investment in research planned. At present, a postgraduate studen costs approximately 35K a year to fund for research, a postdoc costs closer to 70K. If the government plan to double the number of PhD's, I'd say a more sensible approach to our research infrastructure is to use those funds for equal postgrad:postdoc research on top of the money reserved for postdocs, until the ratio of graduates to jobs is right.

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?

Your ignorance of typical research structures is not my concern. This is a bread and butter axiom of research in Ireland as every other poster here who is involvedin research has confirmed the claims mae by myself and r3nu4l. So basically you're coming along, tell us we're all wrong and asking us to do the donkey work? While nornally I'd agree that controversial claims should be backed up, nothing I've said is new to anyone who knows anything about the field so forgive me if I don't particularly care if you're convinced, but look up the conway, APC, NUIG or Maynooth research websites and you should be able to figure out the ratios.

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?

I never mentioned cutting current funding. As for teaching, typically teaching positions are held by faculty teaching staff, not postdocs. You seem, from your previous posts, to feel that there is no difference between the two, however, everyone discussing the topic, bar you, is using industry terms, in our industry, a postdoc and a faculty member, while both strictly postdoctoral, are not the same thing.

Can you show me where in the Us for example that research institutes have post docs on "job for life" public service contracts?

[/quote]
Can you show me where I said they had such a thing or suggested anyone should?

Once again, you make stuff up.

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.

Yes, what is the average life span of a start up company, just out of curiosity?

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?

Where did I say any of that?

This may indeed affect the k

nowledge 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!

Well oddly enough I'm not a postdoc, so what bias must I consider?

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.

Well I'm not any of those. To be frank, I don't really care what the politicians think. They want to gain kudos of the back of the science industries success. However, the Irish research industry has had no success and with perhaps one notable exception in biological engineering, has done nothing noteworthy. PRTLI, at it's conception (and I was there) put forward the goal of having a nobel prize winner within 40 years. As things stand, our only chance comes from an engineer who didn't benefit from the funding.

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.

Do you actually read what people say or is your reality based around what you want to read?

luckat

Perhaps it should be a rule that anyone who finds himself or herself inter-quoting others' posts should go for anger counselling?

GuanYin

luckat wrote:

Perhaps it should be a rule that anyone who finds himself or herself inter-quoting others' posts should go for anger counselling?

I'm not angry, I'm just not flowery

ISAW

psi wrote:

Why cut anything? There are proposed increases, I'd change the proposition.

Fair enough. Id go along with that sentiment. Even in increasing the budget. But when you begin with "Science is not underfunded" you don't give that impression. But don't forget if you want to increase the budget (and I don't mean by indexing it with inflation

Incidently, if you read Michael Kelly's report to IRCset you'd see that his statistics verify much of what has been said by myself and others here.

Where in his report? What which has been siad? specifically what by which others?

Feel free to obtain a copy.

Thanks.
Feel free to provide a reference to one.


By the way where in these reports does it show how knowledge contributes to economic growth? Jane Grimson in economics now not engineering isnt she? Scratch that. Sorry. Trick question. Mind you I have stated that it isnt just about economic growth but if you want funding in public service that had better be a big driver.

You see the whole thing goive an air of "everything else is going up and we all know science is good for the economy and society..." . How is it good? How has it caused growth. Politicians EXPECT IRCSET and the like to say postrgdsa nshould get more funds and that their carreers need some promise. They also expect train drivers to say we should have more trains and bankers to say we should fund financial services centres. Billions has been put into science research. maybe not enough billions but just saying "we are in tenth place" or "we are in fifteenth place compared to the OECD" isnt by itself going to push policy makers into saying "cut everything else and fund science".

I suggest two solutions. Either gradually reduce postgraduate funding and divert it to postdoctoral funding until the positions available for postdocs are reflective of the number of PhD graduating OR keep postgraduate funding at the current level and use future available funding for postdoctoral researchers until the graduates:jobs ratios match.

I'd go with the second proposal. Possibly because there is a number of undergrads topping off a demographic bubble. the next fifteen years will see a decline in them. But they are pushing unpresedinted numbers at present and will for a few years. If funding is maintained numbers can drop and the per capita funding at postgrad be kept whild decanting the surfeit to post doctoral level. But the administration and the people at large MUST be convinced and faithful to science as they are to sport or music as part of the Irish culture.

I don't know - there is a large investment in research planned. At present, a postgraduate studen costs approximately 35K a year to fund for research, a postdoc costs closer to 70K. If the government plan to double the number of PhD's, I'd say a more sensible approach to our research infrastructure is to use those funds for equal postgrad:postdoc research on top of the money reserved for postdocs, until the ratio of graduates to jobs is right.

So it is a question of reallocating the funds rather than suggesting more be added.

Your ignorance of typical research structures is not my concern. This is a bread and butter axiom of research in Ireland as every other poster here who is involvedin research has confirmed the claims mae by myself and r3nu4l.

Your sample of two or three people does not speak for all research in Ireland. By your own admission peoiple whom you claim to be representaative and involved say you are not involved in any groups because only "senior academics are and post docs arent asked".

Even if you DID represent Irish research and had the backup evidence to support your claims you would STILL have to produce it!

So basically you're coming along, tell us we're all wrong and asking us to do the donkey work?

In short - YES.
It goes like this.
YOU start a thread and make claims about the need for and funding of science in ireland.
I come along and say "you think your right. Okay Let me assume you are not. Can you provide any evidence to back up your position"?
You should know what a "scientific sceptic" is. Do you?
You HAVE TO do the donkey work to support YOUR claims. It isn't for me to prove the negative!

While nornally I'd agree that controversial claims should be backed up, nothing I've said is new to anyone who knows anything about the field so forgive me if I don't particularly care if you're convinced,

So "more funding for postdocs as opposed to postgrads" is a completly NORNMAL claim for postdocs to make. Am I surprised? And the fact that you don't care whether people outside of full time postdoctorate research are convinced about funding issues which "daddy knows best" academics should decide while they do so with taxpayers money ius only reenforcing my position not detracting form it!

You see if you do this research with your own money or money you borrow then you can not give a toss for others if that is what you wish. Buit when you are payed from the public purse and your research is funded by it then you had better be prepared to justify your profession if you want extra money. Of course you can if you wish gove up your state pay and pension and go into business and get your bio tech firm to make millions for you. have you ruminated about that yet?

but look up the conway, APC, NUIG or Maynooth research websites and you should be able to figure out the ratios.

Sorry YOU re making the claims. It is for YOU to provide the backup. dont expect ME to do YOUR donkey work for you!

I never mentioned cutting current funding.

So how do you expect more funding fopr post docs? Either you CUT somewhere else or you increase the whole budget which means either a CUT somewhere else e.g. Primary schools, or borrowing money.

Which is it?

As for teaching, typically teaching positions are held by faculty teaching staff, not postdocs. You seem, from your previous posts, to feel that there is no difference between the two, however, everyone discussing the topic, bar you, is using industry terms, in our industry, a postdoc and a faculty member, while both strictly postdoctoral, are not the same thing.

Can you tell me what percentage of post doctoral researchs in third level institutes (excluding those whose contracts FORBID them to do so) are not teaching and not paid by the colleges in which their research is conducted.

Can you show me where I said they had such a thing or suggested anyone should?

Once again, you make stuff up.

Please explain. What have I made up?

Yes, what is the average life span of a start up company, just out of curiosity?

Depends on the country. But it isnt the startups the smart money goes into. Funds are much more readily deployed into existing enterprises.
It also depends on the type of business. Printing for example will have more failure than building MRI scanners.

Well oddly enough I'm not a postdoc, so what bias must I consider?

Oh well then. Forgive me if I thought you were a full time science researcher who has completed his PhD some time ago. You are nt biased then on this basis. I withdraw the suggestion if you dont work in research academic or otherwise and dont have a PhD (or equivalent). You couldnt be biased form your profession if you dont.

Well I'm not any of those. To be frank, I don't really care what the politicians think.

I think that is niave. Furthermore if you dont care what I think and you dont care what they think then why bother telling us?

They want to gain kudos of the back of the science industries success.

Maybe they do. But they are the ones who will influence policy. If you dont care about that then I cant really see why you bother.

However, the Irish research industry has had no success and with perhaps one notable exception in biological engineering, has done nothing noteworthy.

Off the top of my head.

Wood maunfacturing. That compressed stuff developed in Ireland . world market leaders.

Adhesives. Locktite in Limerick. Largest research unit outside of the US.

Marine. Im fairly sure Galway are producing ground breaking researcg. fifteen years ago I saw shellfish rearing projects which operated at five percent of the going costs at the time.

IT. Gravity engine for gaming machines. Havok is it?

Equine studies has developed money making enterprises in horse breeding.

The number of publications in journals for Ireland had about doubled over the last decade.

The number of triadic patents is up but not by as much.

FDI has flattened but the above BERD into post seed funding hasen't solidified.

PRTLI, at it's conception (and I was there) put forward the goal of having a nobel prize winner within 40 years. As things stand, our only chance comes from an engineer who didn't benefit from the funding.

What about "suicide gene" research? And isnt noble prize (in spite of politics) more likely to be from a new thinker rather than a planned group. scratch that. I suppose you are right. since the Manhattan project most Noble science is BIg Science projects like NASA CERN the Genome project etc.

Do you actually read what people say or is your reality based around what you want to read?

yes.

transylman

ISAW wrote:

Off the top of my head.

Wood maunfacturing. That compressed stuff developed in Ireland . world market leaders.

Adhesives. Locktite in Limerick. Largest research unit outside of the US.

Marine. Im fairly sure Galway are producing ground breaking researcg. fifteen years ago I saw shellfish rearing projects which operated at five percent of the going costs at the time.

IT. Gravity engine for gaming machines. Havok is it?

Equine studies has developed money making enterprises in horse breeding.

The number of publications in journals for Ireland had about doubled over the last decade.

The number of triadic patents is up but not by as much.

FDI has flattened but the above BERD into post seed funding hasen't solidified.

yes.

Interesting. Could you post some references for the above claims?

GuanYin

luckat wrote:

How much, PSI?

Zilch.

GuanYin

ISAW wrote:

Where in his report? What which has been siad? specifically what by which others?

Thanks.
Feel free to provide a reference to one.

I'm not here to educate you. The report exists, go request it.

By the way where in these reports does it show how knowledge contributes to economic growth?

I don't care about the economics. I care about the funding agencies in science using the money they already have in an intelligent way. If economists think that the current setup is good, then it just shows you shouldn't have people who don't know the area doing the planning.

But the administration and the people at large MUST be convinced and faithful to science as they are to sport or music as part of the Irish culture.

Thats quite aside from the structure of research.

So it is a question of reallocating the funds rather than suggesting more be added.

wow, quick on the uptake there :rolleyes:

Your sample of two or three people does not speak for all research in Ireland. By your own admission peoiple whom you claim to be representaative and involved say you are not involved in any groups because only "senior academics are and post docs arent asked".

I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean, mainly because your sentance is pretty much unintelligible. Well we could go with the three independent testimonies that all back each other up, OR we could take your word for it, someone who has displayed a shocking ignorance of the Irish research set up. We'll let people decide for themselves.

Even if you DID represent Irish research and had the backup evidence to support your claims you would STILL have to produce it!

As I said, I have no interest in convincing you, mainly because you come in, misrepresent for whatever your own agenda is and really have no idea of the industry you speak of.

I will note, you (as someone has shown) have made claims with no proof or statistics (and in the mix, you added in production companies as examples of Ireland's lead in R&D - I dont think so.

In short - YES.
It goes like this.
YOU start a thread and make claims about the need for and funding of science in ireland.
I come along and say "you think your right. Okay Let me assume you are not. Can you provide any evidence to back up your position"?
You should know what a "scientific sceptic" is. Do you?
You HAVE TO do the donkey work to support YOUR claims. It isn't for me to prove the negative!

Why? You haven't provided me with any argument about how I'm wrong? You haven't produced anything to dispute my claims. Why should I bother justifying myself to you when you've just come in and said "I don't believe you, prove it" without showing any knowledge of the area yourself- I could go around doing that all day on boards for fun.

So "more funding for postdocs as opposed to postgrads" is a completly NORNMAL claim for postdocs to make. Am I surprised? And the fact that you don't care whether people outside of full time postdoctorate research are convinced about funding issues which "daddy knows best" academics should decide while they do so with taxpayers money ius only reenforcing my position not detracting form it!

Where did I say any of that. I don't particularly care what YOU think, because you have shown no knowledge of the area. I care greatly what anyone in the industry thinks, from administration to technicians to professors. But seeing as you have demonstrated that you don't even know what the industry term "postdoc" refers to, why should your opinion on postdocs matter?

You see if you do this research with your own money or money you borrow then you can not give a toss for others if that is what you wish. Buit when you are payed from the public purse and your research is funded by it then you had better be prepared to justify your profession if you want extra money. Of course you can if you wish gove up your state pay and pension and go into business and get your bio tech firm to make millions for you. have you ruminated about that yet?

I don't receive any public funding. I was a state employee for a while in Ireland and the justification of my research went the the appropriate people, it's up to them to justify the money to the public, not me.

Sorry YOU re making the claims. It is for YOU to provide the backup. dont expect ME to do YOUR donkey work for you!

Again, refute my claims with evidence and I'll do the same. Come in and say "prove it" with no input and I'll say, I'm not here to give you free education.

So how do you expect more funding fopr post docs? Either you CUT somewhere else or you increase the whole budget which means either a CUT somewhere else e.g. Primary schools, or borrowing money.

Which is it?

Have you short term memory loss, we covered this already

Can you tell me what percentage of post doctoral researchs in third level institutes (excluding those whose contracts FORBID them to do so) are not teaching and not paid by the colleges in which their research is conducted.

No, why, can you?

Please explain. What have I made up?

You mis-quote and mis-represent other posters, for fun it seems

Depends on the country. But it isnt the startups the smart money goes into. Funds are much more readily deployed into existing enterprises.
It also depends on the type of business. Printing for example will have more failure than building MRI scanners.

But we're talking about researchers who want to stay in research. You're talking about production - which is fine, except youre arguing something that the rest of us arent.

Oh well then. Forgive me if I thought you were a full time science researcher who has completed his PhD some time ago. You are nt biased then on this basis. I withdraw the suggestion if you dont work in research academic or otherwise and dont have a PhD (or equivalent). You couldnt be biased form your profession if you dont.

I don't work in Ireland and I'm not a postdoc. Whatever you want to take from that you can.

I think that is niave. Furthermore if you dont care what I think and you dont care what they think then why bother telling us?

I was posting for people who are actually interested in contributing. Not someone who wants to jump up and down pointing prove it everytime they read something they don't like. As soon as you actually contribute a post that refutes something I've said, then I'll care.

ISAW

ISAW wrote:

So you either

post deleted duplication

bug

Robbing Peter to pay Paul eh? I'm very familiar with that.

If we are leaning towards a knowledge based economy then I would suggest logically that we pay lecturers who are currently skimming a 16hour week at full 60+K per annum and pay them for the hours they are actually working.

/oh noes...the unions

Encouraging them to get involved in research in their area of interest to cap off the extra xxK per annum.
This research would feed back into course design and the quality of the courses and the undergrads, (who knows, maybe giving the undergrads an interest in research too within their courses), that we are turning out as well as diverting some funding towards research.

In all the years I have worked in the field I have no knowledge of a lecturer doing a 32 hour week, unless the poor sod has a genuine committed interest in research.
If I want a raise I have to supplement it with studies and hard work, like the rest of the general populace. Why are lecturers different?

ISAW

transylman wrote:

Interesting. Could you post some references for the above claims?

as i said off the top of my head.

since nobody else has here is the last discussion:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51571295&postcount=1

€3.8 Billion Investment in Science & Technology

but as regards sucess stories heres some from that last thread:

An independent spin-out company from the Department of Computer Science in TCD, and located in Dublin, is Telekinesys Ltd : under the name Havoc.com, it has developed new games engine technology and launched its product in San Jose, California in March 2000.

Neos Interactive Ltd is a London based start-up developing digital video technology, originally researched in the Department of Computer Science, and its R&D Centre is at present recruiting staff for a start-up in Dublin in Summer of 2000.

Actually a researcher in TCD in the last month got a hollywood Oscar in special effects!


There is also the Irish professor in the Us on the East coast who invented the applet and got 5000 million dollars out of Microsoft last year.


Here are some more freferences on post does and Phd levels from that thread

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51644699&postcount=84
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51644788&postcount=85

I note i made some of the other points before here is the backup:

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c6/c6h.htm
Contrary to popular perception, only a relatively small amount of dollars invested by venture capital funds ends up as seed money to support research or early product development. Seed-stage financing has never accounted for more than 8% of all disbursements over the past 23 years and most often has represented 1%–5% of the annual totals. The latest data show that seed financing represented just 1.3% in 2003 and less than 1% in 2004.

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/c5/c5h.htm
# The federal government provided 62% of academic R&D expenditures in 2003, substantial growth from the 58% share of support provided in 2000. The federal share of support had been in decline since the early 1970s, when it reached a high of 69%.

* The share of full-time faculty declined from 87% in the early 1970s to 75% in 2003. Other full-time positions rose to 14% of the total, and postdoc and part-time appointments stood at 6% and 5%, respectively.

The academic doctoral labor force has been aging during the past quarter century.

In most fields, the percentage of academic researchers with federal support for their work was lower in 2003 than in the late 1980s.

* Full-time faculty were less likely to receive federal support (45%) than other full-time doctoral employees (48%). Both of these groups were less frequently supported than postdocs (78%).
* For each of the three groups mentioned above (full-time faculty, other full-time employees, and postdocs) recent doctorate recipients were less likely to receive federal support than their more established colleagues.

I also note I was called a liar and cheat in that thread. I had forgotten that also. I wont get into ad hominem here either.

Judge me by whether I back up what I say and not by any academic snobbery. In fact (my opinion) I value the opinion of a farmer or footballer in this field probably more than those who work in it probably because it is easy to be strong about investment for something field in which one works but much harder to have passion outside ones own sphere.

ISAW

bug wrote:

Robbing Peter to pay Paul eh? I'm very familiar with that.

If we are leaning towards a knowledge based economy then I would suggest logically that we pay lecturers who are currently skimming a 16hour week at full 60+K per annum and pay them for the hours they are actually working.

/oh noes...the unions

Encouraging them to get involved in research in their area of interest to cap off the extra xxK per annum.

LOL. Oddly the lecturers will tell you they get paid for lecturing and the research is something which is unpaid and done "in their spare time".

This research would feed back into course design and the quality of the courses and the undergrads, (who knows, maybe giving the undergrads an interest in research too within their courses), that we are turning out as well as diverting some funding towards research.

yes. that is a big part of doing it from the educational point of view. you know you understand something when you can explain and teach it to to others. but another part is that building a research group gets you quoted on all the papers your research students publish. It also gets you budgets and therefore power. Being cited and published a lot is how academics judge their kudos. so it is good for career progression.

In all the years I have worked in the field I have no knowledge of a lecturer doing a 32 hour week, unless the poor sod has a genuine committed interest in research.
If I want a raise I have to supplement it with studies and hard work, like the rest of the general populace. Why are lecturers different?

indeed. But secondary teachers have 20 "contact hours". Are they different?
I did post grad and i was the only non teacher in the class. I admire the lot of them but I used to slag them off a fair deal. On this issue (and the long holidays ) they went on a lot about "preparation". You get similar in third level that science people are all "researching" during the summer hols.

anyway it came time they were threatening to strike unless they got a 30 per cent pay increase. I suggested they strike during the summer months. "What do you mean thats during the holidays" they said. "But you have lots of preperation and research to do" I replied

Another later postgrad and I find myself with different people from social partners mised with primary and secondary teachers. I paid my fees. the teachers got it paid by the State i.e taxpayer and because it was during summer hols they got days off in lieu of them being training. so do a post grad (so your pay salary will have to increase) and get it paid for and get time oiff work for doing it! Great! Mind yo im not knocking teachers doing more in service postgrads. It is better for their students and schools and whild lecturers dont have to take any lip, teachers are threatned and given a hard time and have to deal with kids who havent even had a breakfast.

bug

ISAW wrote:

LOL. Oddly the lecturers will tell you they get paid for lecturing and the research is something which is unpaid and done "in their spare time".

yes. that is a big part of doing it from the educational point of view. you know you understand something when you can explain and teach it to to others. but another part is that building a research group gets you quoted on all the papers your research students publish. It also gets you budgets and therefore power. Being cited and published a lot is how academics judge their kudos. so it is good for career progression.

I know, and work in an environment where people teach and publish. Its tough, but it justifies their salaries, also they tend to do the work in conjunction with their PG students rather than allow their students to publish for them like so many do.

Its a minority, but it's the way it should be IMO, which, from a purely financial point of view, is what I am logically proposing, (see previous post), we are not assuming that the government kitty is bottomless

For the moment I'm not in a position nor will I extend to second level education for the purpose of this discussion, but I do see the obvious connection.

btw Budgets and power only last for the amount of time the budget does in my opinion and experience, which is why there needs to be a long term solution to funding researchers removing this ridiculous hierarchy and replacing it with judging people on the quality of the papers and research they turn out.
My long term solution isn't favourable or popular, but grants should be supplemental, researchers shouldn't be reliant on them.
And taking existing funds which are keeping those who don't pull their weight in "life-long" jobs, which they don't really merit it is shameful. That is... if we are working towards a knowledge based economy, and assuming we are taking that seriously rather than implementing is on a piecemeal basis. /rant over


Postgraduate teaching is not the same as full time lecturing. Postgraduates are not full-time lecturers and from a financial point of view dont draw the same salaries from the government, they are not budgeted into yearly budgets to the government at 60-70k a pop

ISAW

psi wrote:

I'm not here to educate you. The report exists, go request it.

Sorry but you ARE! YOU brought the report up but you failed to give any reference to it. Please back up what you claim with some semblance of a citation. If you dont you give the impression of shoddy research. You wouldnt allow a student to get away with referring to something and not supplying a reference so why do you apply different standards to yourself?

I don't care about the economics. I care about the funding agencies in science using the money they already have in an intelligent way.

So you are quite happy to take tax payers money and not bother to question about any justification for why you get it? If you don't care about the reason the funding is at the level it is how can you argue about science being important at all to the economy?

If economists think that the current setup is good, then it just shows you shouldn't have people who don't know the area doing the planning.

LOL! "The world should be controlled by scientists since they know best how the world works" now is it? Having the Oireachtas run by scientists would be a disaster.

wow, quick on the uptake there :rolleyes:

What do you mean by this comment?

I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean, mainly because your sentance is pretty much unintelligible.

Funny. Didnt you in the past you suggested I attacked you by taking advantage of english not being your first language? Something I whole hartedly denied btw. Now who is the grammar nazi? If you don't understand something tell me and I will clarify it.

Well we could go with the three independent testimonies that all back each other up, OR we could take your word for it, someone who has displayed a shocking ignorance of the Irish research set up. We'll let people decide for themselves.

Three people who agree with each other about funding post docs and all who work in post doctoral science and have an afiliation to it or three "independent " people (i.e. NONE of which with any connection especially in being paid a salary) ? As opposed to someone who backs up what they claim (and NB I came into this thread later so it is not for me to provide the evidence . I am making COUNTER claims if anything ! The burden of proof is on the side of the ORIGINAL claimant!

Now I have provided statistical evidence to support my counter claim. Opposed to that are people who "know better" because by their own admission they work in or have personal experience of the field. this in itself is a clear admission of BIAS! It is a snobby "daddy knows best" opinion. But it may well be a valid one. Please support your opinion by reference to some actual factual dfata and not "go and look it up" remarks. I dont have to llok it up! I didnt claim it!

As I said, I have no interest in convincing you, mainly because you come in, misrepresent for whatever your own agenda is and really have no idea of the industry you speak of.

This is entilely beside the point. Why my interest or your interest is , is of no bearing to the issue at hand. You CLAIM more post docs are needed in Ireland and PhDs should be reduces. I have asked you for what reason, how many, how much will it cost. Whether you are interested in that question or not it is for you to answer iot oif you want to claim you position is valid.
So far I am the only one who has posted reference to statistical indiators on post docs in Ireland.

I will note, you (as someone has shown) have made claims with no proof or statistics (and in the mix, you added in production companies as examples of Ireland's lead in R&D - I dont think so.

Wrong! go and look up the posts just before yours!

Why? You haven't provided me with any argument about how I'm wrong?

Im sure you hare aware what "proving a negative" and "shifting the burden" is?

you : Unicorns exist!

Me: Prove they do!

You : Prove they don't!

I suppose you now can gleefully conclude that unicoirns exist since you claimed it and I havent proven they don't?

You haven't produced anything to dispute my claims.

THe burden of prof is on the side of the claimant. please stop trying to shift it onto me. I have produced counter evidence however which suggests Ireland compares favourably in terms of post docs and in terms of economic indicators. you however have only suggested reposrts and told me to look them up without any reference to them.

Why should I bother justifying myself to you when you've just come in and said "I don't believe you, prove it"

Because THAT is the whole basis of how science is done. You have a paper. it has a title. It makes a claim. you have a methodology to test this claim. and you then publish it to make this available to others so they can see for themselves and re do the experiment for themselves!

By the way I think I have pointed out. "policy making about science" and "economics of science" are not research in scienc. As i have pointed out to you before I have experience in all these fields but it is "Argument from authority" to dismiss anyone even if they have NO experience. The claim you are making should stand on it s own just as anyone can go to the libnrary and get out a paper. It isnt for them to prove to the librarian that are entitled to this "occult" knowledge is it?

without showing any knowledge of the area yourself- I could go around doing that all day on boards for fun.

Suit yourself! But stick with the issue. Back up your own claims or they are opinion. and every time you go around spouting opinion and not backing it up and talking down to others who DO back up theirs you only lessen your own position to others who ready your words! And some people do go around doing that for fun. They are called sceptics!

Where did I say any of that.

how does this grab you?:

The current model churns out more PhD graduates than there are jobs available in any sector

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.


I also asked you about this:

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.


and you havent referenced it either.
Please supply backup.

I don't particularly care what YOU think, because you have shown no knowledge of the area.

First that is an OPINION. second it is beside the point whether you care otr not. Can you support your own claims is the question?

Third you referred to an earlier thread. You therefore MUST BE aware of the references in that thread sicne you claim you refer to reports there. I havent seen wher you do refer to them yet.

I care greatly what anyone in the industry thinks, from administration to technicians to professors.

i.e. you care about "those in the know" and not about the tax payer who pays for all this. Thats the typoe of thinking which led to massive waste in public service. Ever heard of "acountability" or "transparency"?

But seeing as you have demonstrated that you don't even know what the industry term "postdoc" refers to, why should your opinion on postdocs matter?

Keep bleating that and someone might believe it eh?
First where have i demonstrated this? Second why should I? I didnt make the claims about post docs. YOU did! If I made any claims they were COUNTER claims which are not required but do add to my position.

Just give a definition of "post doc" will you? So we can be sure you dont get off the hook in your claims about how many there should be. It is standard practice to define your terms. Oh and while you are at it show where it differs from my interpretation so we wont get confused again (if indeed any such confusion exists).

I don't receive any public funding. I was a state employee for a while in Ireland and the justification of my research went the the appropriate people, it's up to them to justify the money to the public, not me.

This is ludricous! If you apply for money and you are given it it is for the people who gave you it to justify it? Ever heard of "quality control"? Nope? so it is caveat emptor for the state. If a Minister buys a load of useless vote counting machines it is the Minister and departments fault even if the salesman knew the technology was defunct and not worth the price?

Furthermore you now ADMIT a background of BAIS i.e. you have been paid to work in science research. I asuume you may well accept such money in future? so therefore it is in you own interest to campaign for funding for it isn't it?

Again, refute my claims with evidence and I'll do the same. Come in and say "prove it" with no input and I'll say, I'm not here to give you free education.

Again look up "logical fallacy" "shifting the burden" and "proving a negative".

The burden is clearly on the original claimant.

Have you short term memory loss, we covered this already

Above you obfuscate on claims about post docs. Here when asked what you will cut to fund post dosc you claim to have answered it already.

So you admit that you suggested PhDs be cut to fund post docs?

No, why, can you?

Ill tell you way. because you suggest there is a low amount of science acedemic lecturers working in post doc research. I asked you what you mean by that? What per centage? how do you measure "low" ?

You mis-quote and mis-represent other posters, for fun it seems

you wrote this in response to ta diorect question asking you what I have "made up". so you cant supply any evidence for this empty claim either can you? please withdraw it. you are calling me a liar by claiming I your words"make stuff up"

I was posting for people who are actually interested in contributing. Not someone who wants to jump up and down pointing prove it everytime they read something they don't like.

Where ANYWHERE did i day i "dont like" your position? In fact i think that I have stated several times that my personal opinion shouldnt matter in respect to the objective facts. What I like or dont like is aside from whether Ireland has adequate post docs or PhDs.

As soon as you actually contribute a post that refutes something I've said, then I'll care.

Get it the right way around! It is for the claimant to support it not for oithers to refute it. refuting it only adds to their side. But I HAVE supplied evidence on post grad ratios in Ireland and how they compare internationally.

GuanYin

ISAW, when you show me evidence contrary to what I've said, I'll come back to you. As far as I'm concerned you've done nothing but jump up and down screaming "prove it, prove it, prove it".

I mean, most of your so called refuting are so grossly ignorant of fact - as others have already pointed out. I'll add that you never showed the fulbright scholarships fund irish researchers in this country and you're also wrong about the funding coming from taxpayers, while a large amount does, much of it comes from benefactors and patrons - many from the US, in fact, substantial amounts of the PRTLI money came from private philanthropic sources as was the case with SFI.

So Ill make you a deal, when you put forward a clear, concise and accurate refutal of what ever it is you disagree with that I have posted - then I will enter into debate.

[edit] oh you put up the same nearly decade old stats that you used last time. Glad you found the thread, it saves me going over old ground as to what you're talking hat here. I mean nothing you've posted there actually even relates to what we've been talking about here.....

ISAW

isaw wrote:

Ill tell you way. because you suggest there is a low amount of science acedemic lecturers working in post doc research. I asked you what you mean by that? What per centage? how do you measure "low" ?



you wrote this in response to ta diorect question asking you what I have "made up". so you cant supply any evidence for this empty claim either can you? please withdraw it. you are calling me a liar by claiming I your words"make stuff up"
...

Get it the right way around! It is for the claimant to support it not for oithers to refute it. refuting it only adds to their side. But I HAVE supplied evidence on post grad ratios in Ireland and how they compare internationally.

Earlier you claimed We had discussed this before and you also claimed I hadn't supplied any stats. I pointed out I don't have to since I'm not making the claim but heres something from our prior discussion . You remember the one about you claimed you had supplied me with minutes of meetings and now refuse to show WHERE you did so?
from:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51580986&postcount=25
about the national plan for Rand D.

Isaw wrote:

read the plan! Chapter two. 2006 to 2013

[a reference to this plan http://www.entemp.ie/publications/science/2006/sciencestrategy.pdf]

Principla investigators from 40 to 550
Post docs 120 to 1050
research assistants and technicians both from 20 to 175
PhD students from 235 to 1775

Postgrads from 543 up to 997
post docs from 187 to 315

Apparently you want to cut the 1775 and add to the 315 but you dont say by how much. Nor do you give any international yardsticks (as I have). and this is done on the basis that Phds wont be employed in their field but post docs will. My point is that one has to look at the big picture. it isnt good enough IMHO to just allocate money to paying salariews of post doc researchers. the research must fit into a planned investment strategy. I accept this is anethema for academic "blue skies" basic research with no strings attached but big science requires it and if the pack are going to "mall in and push together" (to use Rugby parlance) then at a significant amount of HERD has to cordinate with BERD! In an even wider context S&T has to be shown to be part of our culture.

I think my position is valid and I believe I have supported it (well the economic part at least) with evidence.

e.g.
...
on BERD
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51581932&postcount=31


Investment in Research and Development (R&D) performed by the business sector in Ireland increased to €1,076m in 2003 and up from €901m in 2001
http://www.forfas.ie/publications/show/pub204.html

This study looks at the regional distribution of skills and employment in six key sectors in Ireland. It traces the historical development of this employment profile and considers the future role of skills in contributing to regionally balanced economic growth and development.
http://www.forfas.ie/publications/show/pub230.html


on post grad post doc job availability:
Table 18 and 19 on Page 33.

539,000 graduates 192,000 science graduates.

Table 40 on page 63 suggsts 52,000 extra science graduates will be needed.

the NSF (US) Science and engineering indicators list 89 science PhD's per million population for Ireland in 2001 i.e about half the level of Switzerland the UK or Finland.

I think with 52,000 extra science graduates there would be jobs for more than 89 PhDs.

On post doc funding:
in the plan p. 29-30

On career track awards: p. 32

On whether I understand a teaching research distincion and what post docs do:
II am talking about almost all college lecturers who do research. If you go back ten years before FP5, SFI PRTLI etc. the main bone of contention was that science researchers were paid to lecture and did research in their spare time. While new types of researchers who do not teach have been created all the ones who do teach are still there! Indeed most of the senior research staff in third level institutions have senior lectureships, senior administration jobs e.g. dean or vice president or chairs for which they are paid out of the public purse. Can ou name a senior science faculty member who doesn't do any research?
...
apart from the fact that consultants actually do research and may well be defines as science researchers I was referring to the senior/junior ration. Look at this of rthe likes of UCD and TCD and to whom the "merit bar" is awarded.


on publilc sector jobs drain and overall job creation
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51641742&postcount=77
http://www.cso.ie/statistics/empandunempilo.htm
post docs and research in particular
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51644699&postcount=84
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51644788&postcount=85

on seed capital and venture capital:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51668629&postcount=90

The above is COUNTER argument. what dis i get in return. Personal insult and scant if any actual evidence supporting the thesis that we should cut PHDs and decant the money to post docs.

Since then we have this:
http://www.forfas.ie/publications/show/pub255.html

Which DOES in some places mention the need for human capital at the post doc level. But in almost ALL sectors it calls for more PhDs[/s] especially for technical support.

ISAW

psi wrote:

ISAW, when you show me evidence contrary to what I've said, I'll come back to you.

Sorry it isnt for me to show the negative no more than it is for me to show unicorns exist. If i care to show counter evidence then that is only adding to by side of the argument. But it is for the CLAIMANT to support their claim.

As far as I'm concerned you've done nothing but jump up and down screaming "prove it, prove it, prove it".

Well you would be WRONG there isince i have posted counter evidence. But even if I didn't post any cvounter evidence it woudl still be for YOU to prove your case! Shifting the burden onto me and asking I prove the negative is tantamount to asking me to prove unicorns don't exist!

I mean, most of your so called refuting are so grossly ignorant of fact - as others have already pointed out.

Really? Ignorant of WHAT facts? Please post some? and please show where others have pointed this out. Can you even do that?

I'll add that you never showed the fulbright scholarships fund irish researchers in this country

It is patently obvious that there are researchers working in Ireland who are funded by Fullbright.

http://www.fulbright.ie/
emphasis added by me:
The Irish Fulbright Commission finances study, research, teaching and other educational activities between Ireland and the United States.

and you're also wrong about the funding coming from taxpayers,

No i am NOT. HERD is from tax payers! That's what HERD is! Higher education is funded by the state! At the outset of this discussion I distinguioshed between HERD and BERD.

you must remember? the post immediately following where I mentioned Fullbright?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=52952417&postcount=36

while a large amount does, much of it comes from benefactors and patrons - many from the US, in fact, substantial amounts of the PRTLI money came from private philanthropic sources as was the case with SFI.

No you mean money came from a single phgilanthropist ("the donor" as he was called) Charles Feeney? PRTLI paid for things like building libraries and was not totally to do with research staff or equipment.

[quote= http://www.entemp.ie/publications/science/2006/sciencestrategy.pdf

section 2.1 page 22 emphasis added by me.
The major initiatives involved the foundation and funding of Science Foundation Ireland (SFI) and the expansion of the HEA’s Programme for Research in Third Level Institutions (PRTLI). Both of these initiatives have been the subject of review by panels of international experts, with very positive findings in regard to the rapid progress in building a base of world class research in Ireland.The graph below shows how Government investment in R&D has increased exponentially over the past decade.

Table 1. Government Expenditure on STI 1995-2005
in Public and Private Sectors (Constant Prices)


[/quote]

This is in fact to me an ERROR in the publication. The author took HERD (higher education expendature )and BERD (business expendature) and added then together to get GERD. the "G" isnt "government" but "Gross Expanditure" in R and D. Care to prove me wrong? And if it does mean "government" then you are entirely wrong about SFI being non tax payer funded.

clarification wrote:

[edit]
Im WRONG on this (G= "gross") since 2003 lists about 500 million of "government" and the BERD was a little over 1,000 million that year.

On the general use of the ETLA "GERD" though, I am correct:
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/rti-rti.nsf/en/te01401e.html
[/edit]

The following paragraphs (and the NDP) make it clear where SFI money is coming from. And the EU Framework money is also Public money. From the tax payer.

So Ill make you a deal, when you put forward a clear, concise and accurate refutal of what ever it is you disagree with that I have posted - then I will enter into debate.

I asked you to justify your position on pose doc funding. I lefgt the way open for you to outline the issue yourself and define "post doc" and what you mean by a "career researcher" and how many should be funded and where the money should come from. I supplied you with the actual state targets and international indicators which seem fair by comparison. If you have a case it is for YOU to make it! I dont have to prove something wrong which you haven't firmed up as a claim in the first place and supplied scant if nay actual factual backup save arguement from authority and "daddy knows best" comments that peopole who work in full time research know better. Well if they do then you shold have no problem educating the rest of then will you?

oh you put up the same nearly decade old stats that you used last time.

Actually I iontersperced then with NEW references! It is called reviewing ones research. But as far as I know the 2006-2010 national plan is still in operation and the actual targets haven't been changed since they were announced FOUR MONTHS AGO! It seems you haven't had much success in changing the targets in the meantime. If you have please enlighten the rest of us.

And if you have a problem with the stats I posted then care to show where you have better ones or where the ones I posted are wrong?

And while you are at it I still cant find the reference in that thread to you supplying minutes of meetings. Since you seem so covenrsant with it where is the reference?

Glad you found the thread, it saves me going over old ground as to what you're talking hat here.

WRONG! Again. where is the reference to minutes you say you gave me?

I mean nothing you've posted there actually even relates to what we've been talking about here.....

Wrong again! Above clearly shows the career path for post docs referenced in the national plan and the targets for PhDs and post docs? I asked you what your adjustment to these targets would be and how you would fund it. You have not answered that yet have you?

2Scoops

ISAW wrote:

Sorry it isnt for me to show the negative no more than it is for me to show unicorns exist.

ISAW wrote:

Shifting the burden onto me and asking I prove the negative is tantamount to asking me to prove unicorns don't exist!

A minor point, but you can't have it both ways - proving unicorns exist is not the same as proving they don't exist. The burden of proof lies with the challenge to the prima facie position.

ISAW

2Scoops wrote:

A minor point, but you can't have it both ways - proving unicorns exist is not the same as proving they don't exist. The burden of proof lies with the challenge to the prima facie position.

What Primae facie position? Please state it? And you are aware that prima facie means ther is already a body of evidence available? Can you point me to this prima facie case?

AS regards the suggestion you make what is being argued here is science and fact not common law on opinion and "balance of evidence". In fact the analogy is much closerto criminal law and the "burden of proof " as opposed to a "balance of probability" of civil law. Prima facie exists in both but the burden of proof requirement is different. And don't ask me about practical experience in law. I have studied that too! But I dont have to be a judge for the point I make to be correct. Law like science is very logical and clear on the nitty gritty of what is meant and clarifying claims. It is also sometimes very long winded but the reason for that is clarity and not the "pay by the minute" suggestion some wags suggest.


But just taking up your point about common law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie

In most legal proceedings, one of the parties has the burden of proof, which requires that party to present prima facie evidence of all facts essential to its case. If that party fails to present prima facie evidence on any required element of its case, its claim may be dismissed without any response by the opposing party.

Which is why I ask you "what case has already been made"?

I will also remind you of the following:
Prima facie is often confused with res ipsa loquitur ("the thing speaks for itself"), the common law legal doctrine which in its modern incarnation allows a tort plaintiff to reach the jury on the question of a defendant's negligence.

So where is the scapel the government has left behind?


Back to your original statement.

You : Unicorns exist.
Me: No they don't prove it!
You : No! YOU prove they don't!

I didnt begin the thread or make the positive claims abot post docs and PhD did I? Now you are suggesting I have to prove the claims about PhD s and post docs are wrong.

I have pointed out that in spite of wanting MORE post docs and that this be funded by LKESS PhDs no actual firm stats as to how many have been provided by the original claimant. I provided how many the state intend (even though i didnt have to).

Now where is the primae facie case that we need less PhDs and more post docs?

Is it in employment stats? No case made there and I provided current and future figures.
Is it in ratio in the general population internationally? No case made there and I also provided reference to the sources for actual comparisions.

All i have got is "people who work in the field know better".
So what do they know better? thats all im asking? Surely they can explain that?

Finally note that in all this I havent argued against funding science in any way. I have asked those who proposed sectoral interests to support their bias for funding priorities with objective evidence. Surely that is something scientists should be capable of?

r3nu4l

Wow, ISAW, all I'm getting from your posts are "Rant, rant, more rant".

That last post was an incredibly long post for something you could have easily ignored, perhaps you need to step back from this a bit?

By the way, increasing the character count in your posts and using UPPERCASE type do not make your posts any more credible. Nor do they add anything to what you are trying to say. If you can't say it succinctly without going off on a tangent, throwing in diversionary tactics etc., then maybe it's not worth posting at all.

2Scoops

ISAW wrote:

What Primae facie position? Please state it? And you are aware that prima facie means ther is already a body of evidence available? Can you point me to this prima facie case?

AS regards the suggestion you make what is being argued here is science and fact not common law on opinion and "balance of evidence". In fact the analogy is much closerto criminal law and the "burden of proof " as opposed to a "balance of probability" of civil law. Prima facie exists in both but the burden of proof requirement is different. And don't ask me about practical experience in law. I have studied that too! But I dont have to be a judge for the point I make to be correct. Law like science is very logical and clear on the nitty gritty of what is meant and clarifying claims. It is also sometimes very long winded but the reason for that is clarity and not the "pay by the minute" suggestion some wags suggest.


But just taking up your point about common law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie

In most legal proceedings, one of the parties has the burden of proof, which requires that party to present prima facie evidence of all facts essential to its case. If that party fails to present prima facie evidence on any required element of its case, its claim may be dismissed without any response by the opposing party.

Which is why I ask you "what case has already been made"?

I will also remind you of the following:
Prima facie is often confused with res ipsa loquitur ("the thing speaks for itself"), the common law legal doctrine which in its modern incarnation allows a tort plaintiff to reach the jury on the question of a defendant's negligence.

So where is the scapel the government has left behind?


Back to your original statement.

You : Unicorns exist.
Me: No they don't prove it!
You : No! YOU prove they don't!

I didnt begin the thread or make the positive claims abot post docs and PhD did I? Now you are suggesting I have to prove the claims about PhD s and post docs are wrong.

I have pointed out that in spite of wanting MORE post docs and that this be funded by LKESS PhDs no actual firm stats as to how many have been provided by the original claimant. I provided how many the state intend (even though i didnt have to).

Now where is the primae facie case that we need less PhDs and more post docs?

Is it in employment stats? No case made there and I provided current and future figures.
Is it in ratio in the general population internationally? No case made there and I also provided reference to the sources for actual comparisions.

All i have got is "people who work in the field know better".
So what do they know better? thats all im asking? Surely they can explain that?

Finally note that in all this I havent argued against funding science in any way. I have asked those who proposed sectoral interests to support their bias for funding priorities with objective evidence. Surely that is something scientists should be capable of?

I was merely pointing out that you used both sides of the unicorn debate to support your position. I made no references to the specific issue, which is why I prefaced my statement with "a minor point but," and none were implied.

GuanYin

Fulbright funds Irish scientists abroad or US scientists in Ireland. It doesn't fund Irish scientists in Ireland. Unless you can show evidence that it does.

Nice selective editing about the taxpayers by the way. Once again misdirection and dishonesty.

There are many patrons across the funding source agencies. You claim there is only one - prove it (we can both play that game). Why do you keep talking like the only funding comes from educational government sources - there are other funding agencies out there including HRB and non-profit organisations.


I'd take the advice above - like I said - if you want to post a concise accurate post, I'll enter debate.

ISAW

r3nu4l wrote:

Wow, ISAW, all I'm getting from your posts are "Rant, rant, more rant".

That last post was an incredibly long post for something you could have easily ignored, perhaps you need to step back from this a bit?

By the way, increasing the character count in your posts and using UPPERCASE type do not make your posts any more credible. Nor do they add anything to what you are trying to say. If you can't say it succinctly without going off on a tangent, throwing in diversionary tactics etc., then maybe it's not worth posting at all.

thanks for the advice on nwriting style but would you please try dealing with the issues raised instead of criticising me or my writing style.

And please don't try to pass me off as a ranting loon. It's clear who made the claims and who has to support them. If you are having any problems understanding that then please do inform us.

ISAW

2Scoops wrote:

I was merely pointing out that you used both sides of the unicorn debate to support your position.

did I? Where?

ISAW

psi wrote:

Fulbright funds Irish scientists abroad or US scientists in Ireland. It doesn't fund Irish scientists in Ireland. Unless you can show evidence that it does.

SFI funds Australian and Indian scientists in Ireland! So what? the nationality of the scientist isn't the issue. The fact that the research is done her IS!

FDI comes into Ireland from multinationals. it does not really matter if they are French German Us or Uk originally it is still a biog industrial plant.

"in Ireland" is the part of the phrase I am emphasising.
Research IN IRELAND is funded! I gave it as an example of some funding for post doctoral research here. It does that!

Nice selective editing about the taxpayers by the way. Once again misdirection and dishonesty.

Whatever do you mean? If you are calling me a liar you had better say so and where you claiming I am not being honest. And support it with evidence. Otherwise shut up. Or you will be shut up if you call people dishonest. It isnt the first time you had a personal go at me.

There are many patrons across the funding source agencies. You claim there is only one - prove it (we can both play that game).

No i don't! I claimed there WAS one BIG funder. Chuch Feeney . via Atlantic Philanthropies. Of the order of hundreds of millions. He is investing four billion dollars.

http://www.atlanticphilanthropies.org/news/news/chuck_feeney_interview_in_irish_america

from 2003 wrote:

to convert its $4 billion in assets into cash, disperse it to good causes over the next 12 to 15 years,

described in that piece as "the world's biggest giver "

Atlantic Philanthropies would eventually donate several hundred million dollars to finance university research, libraries and dormitories on both sides of the Border in Ireland,

It isnt a game! If I make a claim I back it up or withdraw it!
Any luck on finding that reference to the "minutes of meetings" you claim I acknowledged?

Why do you keep talking like the only funding comes from educational government sources - there are other funding agencies out there including HRB and non-profit organisations.

HERD is "higher education eependature in R&D" It is defined as that! It IS state funding! From tax payers!

HERD in NOT BERD and while ther are some significant small funders e.g. Welcome Trust, in Ireland "targeted basic" "applied" and post doctoral education funding in particular comes under HERD.

The HRB is a Statutory body under the aegis of the Department of health and Children:
http://www.dohc.ie/public/information/health_service_agencies/health_research_board.html

i.e. it is FUNDED BY the taxpayer! About 40 million a year for about 60 staff.

It is listed in the IPA Administration Year Book as a "state sponsored body"!

It isn't wholly supported by non state business or charity money as you might like others to think!

I'd take the advice above - like I said - if you want to post a concise accurate post, I'll enter debate.

You already made claims you haven't supported. I pointed them out and supplied counter argumetn. I slso pointed out i cant argue agains claims when you dont supply actual figures about exactly how many post docs and PhDs. I'm not going to change my writing style to suit your refusal to support your own case. What next grammer naziism and spelling flames?

Partucularly when you claim I know nothing about the issues raised when I continually point out where you are wrong and supply supporting evidence.

2Scoops

ISAW wrote:

did I? Where?

Reread my initial post - I included the relevant quotations.

ISAW

2Scoops wrote:

A minor point, but you can't have it both ways - proving unicorns exist is not the same as proving they don't exist. The burden of proof lies with the challenge to the prima facie position.

My apologies. I see the point you were making.

The quote

isaw wrote:

Sorry it isnt for me to show the negative no more than it is for me to show unicorns exist.

should read

isaw wrote:

Sorry it isnt for me to show the negative no more than it is for me to show unicorns don't exist.

I type as i think and frequently make typos. thank you for pointing this out.

GuanYin

ahh more diversion. I believe we were talking about the fate of Irish graduates. You used fulbright as an example of funding for irish researchers in Ireland - now you're saying so what if they're not Irish.

I never said HRB wasn't taxpayers, I said it wasn't education money.

you're exact quote was

ISAW wrote:

No you mean money came from a single phgilanthropist ("the donor" as he was called) Charles Feeney?

Where there did you suggest that

ISAW wrote:

I claimed there WAS one BIG funder

You're quote was money (not big money) came from one source.

I'm getting bored with you now. I thought you were just misquoting me to try and irk me, now it seems you can't even quote yourself...

oscarBravo

ISAW wrote:

If you are calling me a liar you had better say so and where you claiming I am not being honest. And support it with evidence. Otherwise shut up. Or you will be shut up if you call people dishonest. It isnt the first time you had a personal go at me.

ISAW, I suggest you calm down, or you'll be given time to cool off outside the forum. If you have a problem with a post, report it.

ISAW

oscarBravo wrote:

ISAW, I suggest you calm down, or you'll be given time to cool off outside the forum. If you have a problem with a post, report it.

If you have a problem with me take it to PM.

If i am discussing an issue and half way through a post i come across being called a liar or a personal attack I usually tell people about that first. I give them the option of moving away from ad hominem and make sure they clearly understand that.

I draw attention to it each time it occurs. If it doesen't cease then I reserve the right to take it to moderation.

Thanks for your advice in any case.