Seven myths about scientists debunked

[StringJunky]

As scientific researchers, we are often surprised by some of the assumptions made about us by those outside our profession. So we put together a list of common myths we and our colleagues have heard anecdotally regarding scientific researchers.

 

Myth 1: Researchers are paid by their research institutes

A research-focused academic will be provided with excellent colleagues, space, core technical support and often some money for lab maintenance. But not always a salary. Tenure is rare and is more likely to occur in universities but usually with teaching commitments.

The requirement for most researchers is to attract their own salary and research funding from outside their institute. This is typically in the form of competitive government grants, philanthropy and/or industry collaborations.

Scientific researchers are finding it harder to fund themselves due to reduced competitive grant funding. Luckily, some research organisations have a "safety net", offering subsidies for limited amounts of time to top-performing researchers who have not funded their own salaries.

 

 

Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-myths-scientists-debunked.html#jCp

[CharonY]

That article is slightly odd. I guess because they do not provide sufficient context for their examples. For example, 1) seems to be geared toward research institute (rather than research unis for example) and specifically refers to non-tenure track resarch positions. There are positions like these, with fancy names (principal research fellow, non-tenured research professor etc.) and the all suck. They were originally implemented as a stepping stone for young researchers to move toward a TT or at least continuous employment. But they definitely should not be considered the norm. Although in recent times institutes respond to the budgetary crisis with using these temporary positions for research (or teaching) instead of replacing open faculty or equivalent positions. Of course one could add postdocs (who are basically in the same boat but typically with less autonomy) which would then represent the numeric majority of researchers. Still, these positions are have to be considered to be temporary (despite ongoing exploitation). It could be an oddity of the Australian system, too, I suppose.

 

For 2) I would really doubt the claim of `most researchers`` publishing 4-10 papers a year. This will be true for large research groups but they would be in the minority in most disciplines. So far I have seen such rates only a few computational disciplines, some in engineering and a bit in well-funded medical research.

[StringJunky]

That article is slightly odd. I guess because they do not provide sufficient context for their examples. For example, 1) seems to be geared toward research institute (rather than research unis for example) and specifically refers to non-tenure track resarch positions. There are positions like these, with fancy names (principal research fellow, non-tenured research professor etc.) and the all suck. They were originally implemented as a stepping stone for young researchers to move toward a TT or at least continuous employment. But they definitely should not be considered the norm. Although in recent times institutes respond to the budgetary crisis with using these temporary positions for research (or teaching) instead of replacing open faculty or equivalent positions. Of course one could add postdocs (who are basically in the same boat but typically with less autonomy) which would then represent the numeric majority of researchers. Still, these positions are have to be considered to be temporary (despite ongoing exploitation). It could be an oddity of the Australian system, too, I suppose.

 

For 2) I would really doubt the claim of `most researchers`` publishing 4-10 papers a year. This will be true for large research groups but they would be in the minority in most disciplines. So far I have seen such rates only a few computational disciplines, some in engineering and a bit in well-funded medical research.

I did occur to me that it might be a bit peculiar to Australia in parts but I thought it was probably generally true elsewhere.

[CharonY]

Well, I have heard that they do not have a tenure track equivalent as standard (or do not have it anymore). However, only a subset of researchers should actually not be on institute payroll. Especially in universities administrations may not be supportive of research as especially at small unis it may result in net financial loss.

Thus, in some cases researchers are supposed to pay their own salaries. It is a situation that I would not recommend anyone to get into, unless you are fantastically networked. In most countries the grant application success (especially for larger funds) is around 10% and way lower for younger faculty.

[John Cuthber]

The thing that struck me was that I had never heard of any of those "myths" in the first place.

[swansont]

The thing that struck me was that I had never heard of any of those "myths" in the first place.

 

My understanding is that Australia has been threatening to severely curtail science funding in the last year or two (with some cuts already in effect), so this may be playing out in arguments made at a more local level, as scientists try to defend against those actions.

[John Cuthber]

Interesting.

Is it possible that the myths have been spread by Right-wing propagandists a bit like the "Gold plated" public sector pensions myth in the UK?

[swansont]

Interesting.

Is it possible that the myths have been spread by Right-wing propagandists a bit like the "Gold plated" public sector pensions myth in the UK?

 

Possibly. Abbott's party is described as being centre-right, and presumably talking points are coming from that side.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/04/science-funding-cuts-are-generating-fears-for-jobs-and-research-output

Labor’s Kim Carr told Guardian Australia that "this is a government that has no science minister, no science policy, no technology policy, and no jobs policy.”

…

The Greens’ Adam Bandt was even blunter. “Tony Abbott is the most anti-science prime minister we’ve ever had,” he said. “This is an ideologically motivated attack on scientific research.”