Modern #academia in a short conversation.
#science #university #research
University: "We would like to have you join our team of world-class scientists to conduct your fantastic science in our environment."
Researcher: "Great, so how much are you going to pay me?"
University: "Oh, about that. We expect you to apply for your own external funding."
Researcher: "So if I get my own funding from elsewhere, at least you won't expect me to teach then, right?"
University: "Well, not exactly, you have to teach, all researchers have to. It's part of the job."
Researcher: "And you'll provide research equipment according to my needs."
University: "Yes, of course. We can provide some equipment if you apply for it and are deemed a successful applicant according to our criteria for excellence."
Researcher: "Okay, but I can spend the money I get from elsewhere as I see fit, right?"
University: "Nope. You have to give us half of it. You see, there are expenses."
Researchers: "Yes, of course there are expenses. You will provide me a nice office anyway."
University: "Actually, we sold our infrastructure to private investors and cannot afford to rent an office for everyone. But we are very flexible and you can work from home."
Researcher: "Well, at least I can publish in the journals of my own choice."
University: "No. You can publish in the for-profit journals we choose, because our funding from government is tied to those. But you will have to pay your publication fees from your research budget."
@alasaarela Researchers depend on funding to do their job. Funding goes to those with the most merit, which is measured by number of publications in prestigious journals that are more often than not run for profit by predatory companies.
Publishing should indeed be run without profit motive, by universities themselves. But it is all about defining which ones are regarded as prestigious journals for those funding science.
@sara_peltola @mustapipa here's some discussion on how Nature has wielded power:
@sara_peltola @alasaarela @mustapipa
For example, Plan S requirements make it very difficult for community-run Open Access journals with a shoestring budget to stay in business. Plan S is all about cementing the publishing mafia's hold on science. It is not about open science and cheaper publishing and reading.
@alasaarela @sara_peltola Agreed. However, junior scientists cannot do that because they would then effectively end their promising career by publishing in less prestigious journals because they would not get funded.
Senior scientists, professori etc., could make a difference but they seem ignorant in general, because why should they seen to change a system they themselves benefited from greatly?
But I do think things can be changed, albeit very slowly.
@alasaarela Of course there is much plurality, and the severity of the problem depends on the discipline.
And services such as arXiv have done a lot to free the science. Things are improving, but progress happens one funeral at the time as always.
The grim reaper removing obstacles for progress, indeed. 💣
Imagine if people were immortal, nothing would ever improve because >we always did it this way<.
When scihub is no longer needed for those who do not wish to be robbed of their money for doing science.
Or z-library for that matter.
What the hell??
@mustapipa University: when writing that big grant proposal, be sure to put in that we consider you an important, valued researcher and we will cover 50% of your salary if you're successful!
Researcher: good news! I got the grant!
University: Aah, we weren't expecting that, and didn't budget to have to fund half your salary. Sorry, looks like you'll have to go apply for another grant to cover that.
@tero That is beyond the point.
Why have we allowed to degrade universities to this extent?
@kaukamieli Some providers of external monies require university affiliation, so that funding can be paid as a salary. This does tie the researchers to the institutes.
But of course universities provide some research facilities, library services, assistance in publishing and press releases, accounting and financial services to help manage grants, office and a framework where colleagues are locally in touch constantly.
What I have described is a consequence of decades of cuts to the core.
@gimulnautti @kaukamieli Of course, the only way to initiate change is to make the current practices unviable.
Unfortunately such institutional change typically only advances very slowly and is a constant uphill struggle.
@mustapipa there are so many moments when I've gone
Wait a moment
Am I being scammed???
@cedric I am sorry to hear that, but I think your reasons are valid and the problems are recognised broadly. I fully understand and respect your choice.
My choice is to stick to it, no matter what, because no job is as satisfying as that of a scientist. Having stood on the shoulders of giants and seen farther than anyone before me brings humility. It is a priviledge to be able to carry on.
Academia won't change for the better if good people stop fighting for it from within.
@mustapipa I totally agree. I do miss academia some days.
I was young, 29, and I didn't feel a commitment to doing research. I had only donea PhD because why not. I had moved country a few years earlier, I wasn't even committed to the UK.
I did 2 postdocs during my PhD (I didn't do things in the usual order), and after that I found discouraging to constantly having to beg for money. (Wrongly) It didn't make me feel valued. And I just didn't like the mountains of paperwork.
Marie-Luise Steinmeyer
Mikko Tuomi
Mikko Alasaarela
Sara Peltola
Tremarctos Ornatus
antipode77
Clockwork ☃️✒️
Trappistian.One
spilt infinitive
Winnie S. H.
Tero Keski-Valkama
Sam Levine
kaukamieli
Toni Aittoniemi
cyborgneticz
Cedric