Ireland's need for scientists

luckat

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?

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?

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

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."

leninbenjamin

yes this is really something that needs to be put on the agenda more. i'm in NUIG studying IT and the numbers are ridiculously small. also the depts budget is constantly being slashed every year, so we now have to oldest and most troublesome PCs on campus... only in Ireland.

The lack of graduates in these areas though is quite frightening, the economic impact could be very severe, seeing as some of the most prominant employers in this Country (Dell, Microsoft, Intel i think form 20%? or something ridiculously high of our GDP) are all in this sector. if we can't get the graduates we wont be able to keep these companies here regardless, or else immigration remain at levels that will continually strain our infrastruture etc.

the only thing that will gain more graduates in these areas is a complete rethink on how we teach these subjects at second level. people are just completely put off the science and tech stuff due to the crap done at LC. but this same ould govt. have been spewin' the same old guff about how they will do this for years now...

it's not an encouraging situation

luckat

It's fecking ridiculous. What kind of dimwits are we electing? Not next time, though.

Cantab.

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

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. 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.

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. 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).

luckat

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.

r3nu4l

Cantab. wrote:

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. 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.

QFT! :mad:

After my PhD, I did a 3 year post-doc (Biology) and quickly became aware of the stupidity of continuing on that road. The problem with postdocs is that very experienced scientists are priced out of the marketplace simply because many grants do not offer better salaries for greater experience. So a post-doc with 10 years experience must accept the same salary as someone who has perhas only 3 years experience.

The best grants in Ireland do reward excellent science and pay well but these grants are few and far between and there is such pressure on those holding the grants to produce the goods that they advertise globally in the journals "Science" and "Nature", thus attracting the worlds best.


The lack of pension, employment rights, a straightforward career path, job security, health benefits and other packages led me to leave scientific research for good and change careers. I'm now earning far more money than a post-doc for a job that is far safer and far less mentally challenging, fare less pressured and far less stressful. MADNESS!

I know post-docs in their 40's who are now stuck on recurring contract with no chance of earning more money or improving their positions. It's sad to see. 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!

Scigaithris

leninbenjamin wrote:

yes this is really something that needs to be put on the agenda more. i'm in NUIG studying IT and the numbers are ridiculously small. also the depts budget is constantly being slashed every year, so we now have to oldest and most troublesome PCs on campus... only in Ireland.

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?

luckat

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?

Maybe. But we need scientists of all disciplines. What drives me really bats is the way the pols mouth off about it, and people kind of nod, as if *talking* has somehow magically transmuted the underfunded science departments into well-funded departments with well-qualified, well-paid staff - when the reality is that there's a flooding brain drain to Europe and America, and even the Far East, as Irish scientists leave to get work.

GuanYin

This was debated long and hard a few months ago.

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).

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.

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).

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.

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.

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

r3nu4l

If that post wasn't so long psi, I'd give it the QFT treatment! It's incredible to think that all over the country post-docs have been commenting that there is no point in funding thousands more PhD's each year if the Government aren't going to ensure that there are jobs available for them on completion.

The funny thing is that since post-doc salaries improved in Ireland there has been alarge influx of British post-docs (who were very poorly paid in the UK). Some funding bodies in the UK have recognised this and increased funding for postdocs as a result! Instant action to prevent brain drain from the UK.

It's a pity the Irish Government aren't listening to the Scientists who have already completed PhDs and know the difficulties faced by PhD graduates. Instead of course, they are listening to the university lecturers who run labs and are happy with the post-doc status quo. After all if there are more pontential post-docs out there they won't be so picky when it comes to job hunting and will end up accepting lower salaries just to get a job.

luckat

The postdocs I know are leaving to get interesting, secure and properly paid jobs in research-centred universities abroad. I was talking to a guy last week who was actually on the verge of tears because he didn't want to leave Ireland - it was like something out of the 1950s, the emigrant boat. And this is a talented scientist.

r3nu4l

My gf has published in a top-tier journal and was shortlisted for the Royal Institution postgraduate student of the year Great Britain and Ireland award.

When it came to looking for jobs in Ireland there was nothing worth talking about in terms of job security, hence our move to the UK. At the same time I decided to quit the lab and instead entered medical communications. I didn't want to go down the post-doc route and there aren't a lot of decent, permanent, research jobs in Ireland, so I left the lab. We both ended up very reluctantly moving to the UK. We're enjoying life here but it's a just such a pity that we had to move countries to get a decent, secure job with good pay.

Zombrex

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?

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?

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

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."

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.

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

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

Good to see that things have changed :rolleyes:

Raskolnikov

leninbenjamin wrote:

The lack of graduates in these areas though is quite frightening, the economic impact could be very severe, seeing as some of the most prominant employers in this Country (Dell, Microsoft, Intel i think form 20%? or something ridiculously high of our GDP) are all in this sector.

There is a pool of 440 million workers who are entitled to work in Ireland not to mention countless numbers of non EU25 students that to come to study here.

Another point, Dell are basically an assembly company. From talking to a friend, they only take on 5 or 6 IT grads a year and demand is quite high for those positions. Intel? Well, I know personally that they're undergoing a hire freeze at the moment. Not to mention, they're primarily a manufacturing company with a small IT development part in Shannon. They took on 1 (yes, really) IT grad this year. As for Microsoft? Well I have first hand experience as I'm currently in the interview stages with them. They're looking for a potential 10 people, there was again, huge demand for these places. One interesting feature I learned of their recruitment was that maybe 1/2 of the graduates weren't even Irish citizens. It goes to show that if the expertise isn't in Ireland, it can be brought in from abroad.

Ireland's labour laws for attracting skilled labour I would say are now some of the loosest in the world. The only thing we need to work on is to use similar incentives to attract the best and brightest in the research/academic field to our universities (the US is unmatched in this regard at the moment).

Raskolnikov

Agree totally with what wicknight said above as well. It may be morally/ethically dubious, but we need to reverse the brain drain so that we're the ones extracting the best and brightest of academia to our country.

Jimoslimos

To give my two cents here, I'm working as a research scientist in a R&D lab for a large multinational healthcare company in England. This same company has a much larger presence in Ireland but no R&D operations (like Raskolnikov remarked about Dell, an assembly company with a scientific name)

Therin lies the problem, with an ever increasing amount of post docs and no research amongst industry in Ireland leaving the following options;

1) Stay in academia in Ireland - high competition, poor job security and prospects
2) Emigrate

r3nu4l

Jimoslimos has perfectly summed up the situation in Ireland.

Again, if you ask the Government they will talk a lot of hot air about %age increase in funding and PhD places and the X millions of euro invested in Science and technology blah, blah, blah.

Ask the academics and they will moan a bit about not getting certain grants but overall they will say that the situation has improved dramatically over the past ten years.

No-one ever seems to ask the post-docs!

I once attended a meeting with [Government-funding body], specifically to discuss post-doc issues. When I pressed [Government-funding body]on the idea of a post-doc career track and tenure I was stonewalled. 'That's not our remit' was the answer. When I suggested that this was something that they as an agency could bring to Government as feedback they had received, I was again told, 'That's not our remit'.

Every time a post-doc asked about career progression or future plans for post-docs, there was no answer forthcoming. This was a few years ago, when the Government first announced plans to increase the number of PhD places in Science. We expressed our concerns to no avail.

As the Americans say...'You do the Math, go figure!'

GuanYin

Well the first thing is that there is no worthwhile postdoctoral representation in Ireland.

It's actually funny. When I first got into research and went looking for grants, I had huge run-ins with IRCset. I accused them of biasing their grants towards already funded labs, seeing as they only gave PhD stipends and not bench fees or consumables. Looking back, I can't help but thinks that they had the right idea (albeit probably not intentionally) seeing as they assured that the PhD was entering an already established lab with financial and (presumably) technical support. Now, I'd like to see all Irish PhD funding come without full consumables for that reason, provided of course this forces research towards a postdoc driven system.

Just to clear up mis-conceptions, the USA isn't exactly the promised land. Asking an Irish PhD graduate to move to NYC for an entry level NIH salary is asking alot (it's currently around 36k USD + benefits) - but provided they have chosen the right lab, they know that they'll get good training, publications, funding to do the work, facilities and a chance of career and salary progression. - all of which are lacking at home.

That said, the differences are startling, we (3 PIs with 12 fellows) have the same level core facilities (Real time, bioinformatics suite, confocal etc etc) between the 15 of us as an entire university faculty (over 100) did in Ireland. The last grant I got was used to supplement the salary of three of the group (try doing that in Ireland).

At the moment, I'm guessing that the government are working in the assumption that what they lose in graduate PhD's they'll make for in returning junior faculty level acadmics. This is naive. With the economy in Ireland, specifically the housing market, returning home is less and less attractive.

J.S. Pill

Quick question,

You often hear politicians carping on about 'knowledge based' economies and the need to churn out science/tech grads etc. Some politicians tend to focus a lot on numbers e.g. Tony Blair frequently reminds the public that india and China turn out 6 zillion engineering graduates a year so Britain needs to scrap sociology and make everyone study engineering (Ok i'm being slightly hyperbolic).

I presume that any company looking to locate R&D operations in any given country is going to look beyond these figures and focus on the quality and suitability of the 'knowledge base'. These figures seem to be more for public consumption.

My question is, are politicians swallowing their own BS in believing that the proctor and gambles of the world will be wowed by numbers or is there any other agenda that is being served by increasing the supply of science/tech graduates without (as seems to be the case from what everyone here is saying) paying sufficient attention to the structure of the sector?

GuanYin

J.S. Pill wrote:

My question is, are politicians swallowing their own BS in believing that the proctor and gambles of the world will be wowed by numbers or is there any other agenda that is being served by increasing the supply of science/tech graduates without (as seems to be the case from what everyone here is saying) paying sufficient attention to the structure of the sector?

It's an outdated notion. As I've said before and others have said here, the amount of private sector research in Ireland is negligible.

In the 90's, there was the notion that companies relocated here due to the high education among the people and the benefits and tax incentives bestowed by the government.

While having graduates gives a nice portfolio and allows us to enter the fray, we'll never compete with the emerging knowledge bases like Singapore and Australia. The main reason is that it is now too expensive to operate here, even before you start underpaying scientists.

The truth of the matter is, Ireland does need science graduates, but an increase in diploma level graduates and maybe MSc graduates would be sufficient to meet industrial needs.

What will attract companies to Ireland is a reputation as a front runner in the scientific world (ie. high profile scientists and publications as well as 4th level education). The government naively thinks we can get this on the cheap by pumping low level funds into 4the level education andignoring the other two.

It's basically poor politics more than anything else and has a large hint of public spin to it. But in fairness, the academics and postdocs need to organise themselves and do something about it.

Jimoslimos

psi wrote:

The truth of the matter is, Ireland does need science graduates, but an increase in diploma level graduates and maybe MSc graduates would be sufficient to meet industrial needs.

What will attract companies to Ireland is a reputation as a front runner in the scientific world (ie. high profile scientists and publications as well as 4th level education). The government naively thinks we can get this on the cheap by pumping low level funds into 4the level education andignoring the other two.

So so true and an excellent post. The fact is that we can never hope to compete with developing countries on volume of graduates churned out. Therefore the emphasis must be on producing (and keeping) extremely talented and high profile scientists.

Now the governments approach on this is to produce as much postdocs as possible and we're sure to find at least one great scientist. End result - a lot of poorly trained post-docs. In actual fact we should be selecting fewer and focusing on these, better training etc.

luckat

It's not just the chance of getting jobs in multinationals. While we have the multinationals, we have the chance of developing an *indigenous* R&D industry - but only if Irish scientists have the security and pay that they can develop their careers, make the publications, learn from the foreign scientists who come in, get into the worldwide networks - and have the security of tenure and income that they can afford to keep inside those networks.

Surely it's not just a mad dream that Ireland could be a centre of scientific excellence?

Incidentally, why don't the postdocs form their own union - or call it an 'association' if they're snobbish about unions - and start pushing and publicising?

transylman

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?

J.S. Pill

psi wrote:

While having graduates gives a nice portfolio and allows us to enter the fray, we'll never compete with the emerging knowledge bases like Singapore and Australia. The main reason is that it is now too expensive to operate here, even before you start underpaying scientists.

The truth of the matter is, Ireland does need science graduates, but an increase in diploma level graduates and maybe MSc graduates would be sufficient to meet industrial needs.

I may be going slightly off topic here, but is there any truth in the notion that our government encourages the creation of run of the mill science graduates even when demand by companies for such graduates is quite low? i.e. the government tries to bolster the supply side in order to create demand rather than encouraging school leavers to go into these areas because there will be plenty of opportunities?

luckat wrote:

It's not just the chance of getting jobs in multinationals. While we have the multinationals, we have the chance of developing an *indigenous* R&D industry - but only if Irish scientists have the security and pay that they can develop their careers, make the publications, learn from the foreign scientists who come in, get into the worldwide networks - and have the security of tenure and income that they can afford to keep inside those networks.

It seems blindingly clear that we need to distinguish between producing graduates to fill IT jobs (loosely defined...) and creating a quality R&D sector but the two issues seem to be deliberately conflated in speeches etc.

By the way, whats the view of the Universities on all of this? Particularly UCD & Hugh Brady? Might it be the case that they're quite happy to accept the approach or throwing money at '4th level' without any concrete improvement in the sector's contribution to the overall economy?

luckat

The MIT Media Lab? Didn't that crash in flames?

Tom Dunne

luckat wrote:

The MIT Media Lab? Didn't that crash in flames?

Indeed it did.

On 14 January 2005, the Board of Directors of Media Lab Europe announced that the company would go into voluntary solvent liquidation. The decision was taken because its principal stakeholders, the Irish Government and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), had not reached agreement on a new funding model for the organization. (Full press release)

buddhi

While having graduates gives a nice portfolio and allows us to enter the fray, we'll never compete with the emerging knowledge bases like Singapore and Australia. The main reason is that it is now too expensive to operate here, even before you start underpaying scientists.

What will attract companies to Ireland is a reputation as a front runner in the scientific world (ie. high profile scientists and publications as well as 4th level education).

There seems to be a contradiction here.

Front runner in the scientific word, to me that means a degree of competition with other countries. You said we cant compete with Singapore and Australia, an emerging knowledge bases. How then Ireland can become a front runner?

As to the main question. In America, etc universities are adept at fund raising and attracting private sector money. In Ireland it seems that most universities expect government to fund them.


With love,

Buddhi

Edited due to the request for clarification 22.03.07

GuanYin

J.S. Pill wrote:

I may be going slightly off topic here, but is there any truth in the notion that our government encourages the creation of run of the mill science graduates even when demand by companies for such graduates is quite low? i.e. the government tries to bolster the supply side in order to create demand rather than encouraging school leavers to go into these areas because there will be plenty of opportunities?

There may be variances in standards between course, but by and large I don't think so. I've seen good and bad graduates 10 years ago and I see pretty much the same standards in graduates today. I think if there is a problem, it is that too many universites go for the rote-learning essay style exams. I know believe that continuous assessment is the way to go, but thats a different matter altogether.

It seems blindingly clear that we need to distinguish between producing graduates to fill IT jobs (loosely defined...) and creating a quality R&D sector but the two issues seem to be deliberately conflated in speeches etc.

Yes and no. By and large both fields have an aspect of development to them and the point is that all the jobs lack development and are closer to production line jobs. I'd even go so far as to say that its jobs for graduates that are most sorely lacking.

By the way, whats the view of the Universities on all of this? Particularly UCD & Hugh Brady? Might it be the case that they're quite happy to accept the approach or throwing money at '4th level' without any concrete improvement in the sector's contribution to the overall economy?

It's a hard one to say for sure but certainly their actions seem to go with that. After all, they get government funding for students, not employees but from my experience, the competition for internal resources and hierarchy between academics is the main reason for lack of focus here.

Interestingly, in the US, many academic researchers must find their own salary funding through grants. Perhaps it's the salaried positions of acaemics that holds us back?

buddhi wrote:

There seems to be a contradiction here.

Does there? How so?

buddhi wrote:

As to the main question. In America, etc universities are adept at fund raising and attracting private sector money. In Ireland it seems that most universities expect government to fund them

The money in Ireland is "new" so there have been less people in the position of patron i the past. With all our new millionaires, this may change in years to come.

buddhi

Psi,

Thank you for your comments. Please check my edited post for the answer to your question.


With love,

Buddhi

GuanYin

buddhi wrote:

There seems to be a contradiction here.

Front runner in the scientific word, to me that means a degree of competition with other countries. You said we cant compete with Singapore and Australia, an emerging knowledge bases. How then Ireland can become a front runner?

Singapore and Australia offer very cheap start up and overheads compared to Ireland. What I meant was (and this was more to do with the context of the question about whether numbers of graduates will attract companies) that companies have no reason to come here over places like those when Singapore (for example) has just as many scientists available and is attracting top foreign scientists with huge salaries and funding set ups.

If we could do the same, then we would at least level out the playing field. Front running in the scientififc world means performing science at the highest level, not so much attracting business, but then again, that will follow.

Look at Cambridge in MA, USA. Dreadfully expensive place to conduct business but you have so many top academics that the science in the area is cutting edge. You get lots of start up companies and you big biotech R&D facilities moving in.

So perhaps I should have said, "as is, Ireland will never compete"

luckat

psi wrote:

Look at Cambridge in MA, USA. Dreadfully expensive place to conduct business but you have so many top academics that the science in the area is cutting edge. You get lots of start up companies and you big biotech R&D facilities moving in.

Exactly. We don't need to concentrate *just* on the obvious moneymaking science grads, but on a standard of excellence in science departments - a scientific culture equivalent to the Irish literary culture, which spreads from hugely successful chicklit bestsellers like Marian Keyes across to whodunnit bestsellers like John Connolly and out to the far edge of literary bestsellers like John Banville, playwrights like Frank McGuinness and filmmakers like Neil Jordan.

We need the quantum physicists, and we need the nano-nanoo types, and the cutting-edge inventors, and the good earthy scientists who can work for top-of-the-line R&D companies.

But we're not going to get them until the government starts paying for them.

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.