On Consensus and Funding

Although Nejat Düzgünes' critique summarized the major criticisms, there was one that was omitted: "cronyism." However, I should point out that there was nothing in his critique that had not been said before, especially in the '70s, when life scientists were asked for their comments and from which little emerged to change the system. I respectfully suggest that his suggestion is flawed. His alternative to the current grant system would "provide continuous and stable funding for scien

Sheldon Gottlieb
Jun 6, 1999

Although Nejat Düzgünes' critique summarized the major criticisms, there was one that was omitted: "cronyism." However, I should point out that there was nothing in his critique that had not been said before, especially in the '70s, when life scientists were asked for their comments and from which little emerged to change the system.

I respectfully suggest that his suggestion is flawed. His alternative to the current grant system would "provide continuous and stable funding for scientists who have a track record of solid publications."

Question: Where do newly minted scientists get this track record? By being indentured servants (postdocs)? What about young scientists with ideas who do not wish to spend years in someone s lab working on someone s ideas--or, who do not wish to put their careers on hold? And when they have finished their period of servitude, they are not even assured of jobs. This situation...

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of

Receive full access to digital editions of The Scientist, as well as TS Digest, feature stories, more than 35 years of archives, and much more!
Already a member?