I never worked for a uni in a capacity, which would allow me to know what happens to those fringe benefits. Officially, in the institute where I worked, this money went to pay the electricity bills etc. Strangely, the administrators were driving these super-expensive cars and changing them rather often, while we were told to shut off equipment and computers in the evenings and sent e-mails about how many euros we saved last month on our electricity bill.
The country you work in has had a fair few scandals recently regarding where the money on large projects has flowed. As have many others too of course. Maybe you'd be more suited to a country with an even lower corruption index? I'm thinking time to learn German for all of us in Europe? (well, i'd say that, I already know German, but I really don't want to live in Germany). But basically, i'm not sure that the problems you are talking about now are unique to science when it comes to underfunded institutions where some at the top don't mind giving themselves large bonuses despite cutting all the corners. especially if where you work relies on EU and state funding or commission projects etc. Especially if a lot of funding comes via commission projects.
And the benefits for universities are pretty large, because taking on the grants means you might actually manage to get research output, rather than just undergrad teaching.
I just came to this country a few month ago. 'Was in Spain before, and that is the Institute I was talking about (sorry, I should have made that clear). Germany is heaven compared to Spain - here, there are at least grants to write! I am just a little too late here (age-wise). Not sure what's going to come out of this experience.
But basically, i'm not sure that the problems you are talking about now are unique to science - I am sure they are not. Hence "yet another channel", and all that.
Almost all enterprises are channels for money to flow to the mega rich, which in our day and age means mostly business leaders get the money.
My main rant is that the funding in my country is determined by politicians, none of whom are scientists, yet they get to decide what areas of science deserve funding (based on what your buddy in industry who gives you free champagne to bath in says) and who think that science is a project of: I want you to discover the teleporter, how much money will that cost?
But let's not forget that we are all fed this lofty ideal that scientists are somehow there for the benefit of humanity and are the smartest people on the planet etc, when the reality is obviously that science as the concept we have today actually evolved from rich fucks who loved to sit around and tinker and argue as a hobby. While most of the actual knowledge evolved from necessity a lot of the time (how do I build this? how can I predict this so that crops will grow? etc). In a sense, science being there for industry is the
( ... )
Science can't all be applied. Or, to put it in another way, we can't all be doing engineering. Which is what the politicians seem to want.
who think that science is a project of: I want you to discover the teleporter, how much money will that cost? - that's engineering.
I continue to assert, that we need CERNs and SSCs and ISSs so that we have something to look forward to, other than the next iPad or smart TV. We need people, rich or otherwise, tinkering with stuff at their leisure. Quite a few scientists were dirt poor and existed on the donations/grants of the rich.
So no... We are not retuning to the roots. We are biting our own tails.
Science can't all be applied. Or, to put it in another way, we can't all be doing engineering. Which is what the politicians seem to want.
who think that science is a project of: I want you to discover the teleporter, how much money will that cost? - that's engineering. I'm in complete agreement with you, which is why I said that's the bit of the rant you missed
( ... )
Hmmm... The issue here is: do you want less science funding and less industry involvement? - I wasn't actually talking about that. It was more about the issue of where money flows and where it ends, and the issue of scales (a typical amount of funding for a PI, on the scale of things - compare that with a budget for a, say, Hollywood blockbuster, or a salary or a movie star or an NFL player).
Industry involvement in science, on some level, is healthy - keeps us grounded. But it should not keep us bound, or enclosed, which is what is happening now. What I see happening is, R&D departments in industry are being closed - they can't afford them - so they outsource to the Universities the work that goes beyond proof of concept and demonstration of principle, leaving us with less and less time to dream up new things.
I don't think donations from the rich is a viable way to fund the next ISS project Well... Time will show what will become of those private race-to-space things one keeps hearing about. I wouldn't dismiss them outright.
I work mostly on NIH or similar health research funded grants at this point. The money goes mostly to pay salaries of people doing the research, most of whom have doctorates, including the portion of time faculty spend on a particular project.
And the benefits of the projects seem to me to mostly go to patients.
It seems to me like the people who are doing the bulk of the research work deserve to be paid somehow. What alternative are you proposing, exactly?
That they are paid more, and that the effort expanded on getting them to be paid, becomes less. More or less. And especially that it is simpler to continue paying them, in various ways, for periods of time exceeding one or two years - or whatever the duration of an NIH grant is. At least to those, who deserve it, by producing benefits for the patients.
Comments 48
You left out the fringe benefits the university takes from awarded grants.
Reply
Officially, in the institute where I worked, this money went to pay the electricity bills etc.
Strangely, the administrators were driving these super-expensive cars and changing them rather often, while we were told to shut off equipment and computers in the evenings and sent e-mails about how many euros we saved last month on our electricity bill.
Reply
And the benefits for universities are pretty large, because taking on the grants means you might actually manage to get research output, rather than just undergrad teaching.
Reply
I am just a little too late here (age-wise). Not sure what's going to come out of this experience.
But basically, i'm not sure that the problems you are talking about now are unique to science - I am sure they are not. Hence "yet another channel", and all that.
Reply
My main rant is that the funding in my country is determined by politicians, none of whom are scientists, yet they get to decide what areas of science deserve funding (based on what your buddy in industry who gives you free champagne to bath in says) and who think that science is a project of: I want you to discover the teleporter, how much money will that cost?
But let's not forget that we are all fed this lofty ideal that scientists are somehow there for the benefit of humanity and are the smartest people on the planet etc, when the reality is obviously that science as the concept we have today actually evolved from rich fucks who loved to sit around and tinker and argue as a hobby. While most of the actual knowledge evolved from necessity a lot of the time (how do I build this? how can I predict this so that crops will grow? etc). In a sense, science being there for industry is the ( ... )
Reply
who think that science is a project of: I want you to discover the teleporter, how much money will that cost? - that's engineering.
I continue to assert, that we need CERNs and SSCs and ISSs so that we have something to look forward to, other than the next iPad or smart TV. We need people, rich or otherwise, tinkering with stuff at their leisure. Quite a few scientists were dirt poor and existed on the donations/grants of the rich.
So no... We are not retuning to the roots. We are biting our own tails.
Reply
who think that science is a project of: I want you to discover the teleporter, how much money will that cost? - that's engineering. I'm in complete agreement with you, which is why I said that's the bit of the rant you missed ( ... )
Reply
The issue here is: do you want less science funding and less industry involvement? - I wasn't actually talking about that. It was more about the issue of where money flows and where it ends, and the issue of scales (a typical amount of funding for a PI, on the scale of things - compare that with a budget for a, say, Hollywood blockbuster, or a salary or a movie star or an NFL player).
Industry involvement in science, on some level, is healthy - keeps us grounded. But it should not keep us bound, or enclosed, which is what is happening now. What I see happening is, R&D departments in industry are being closed - they can't afford them - so they outsource to the Universities the work that goes beyond proof of concept and demonstration of principle, leaving us with less and less time to dream up new things.
I don't think donations from the rich is a viable way to fund the next ISS project
Well... Time will show what will become of those private race-to-space things one keeps hearing about. I wouldn't dismiss them outright.
( ... )
Reply
Reply
But I digress.
Reply
Reply
Reply
And the benefits of the projects seem to me to mostly go to patients.
It seems to me like the people who are doing the bulk of the research work deserve to be paid somehow. What alternative are you proposing, exactly?
Reply
More or less.
And especially that it is simpler to continue paying them, in various ways, for periods of time exceeding one or two years - or whatever the duration of an NIH grant is. At least to those, who deserve it, by producing benefits for the patients.
Reply
Leave a comment