A reminder for those trainees all hopped up on the #UCStrike right now. This exists. Would be a great place to publish your thoughts on how the business of science should be run. sciencepolicyjournal.org/about.html
It explicitly is for earlier career folks.
I, for one, am looking forward to pieces which examine graduate student productivity before Covid, during Covid, pre-strike and after the #UCstrike enhanced benefits have been put in place. This is low hanging fruit for a pub, trainees.
It’s also well worth exploring what your society journals will take in terms of content. Comments, opinions, letters to ed, etc. get your ideas in print where they can be referenced, disseminated, etc. for this time and the next time.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The US is generously endowed with poor people who vote Republican, Trump humpers, Elon stans and Michael Moore haters. The notion that pointing out structural compensation pyramids in academia is going to move the general public opinion on worker compensation is absurd.
20 times $50,000 equals $1,000,000. This latter is the approximate base+bonus salary of UC President Drake, from what I can google. The wage disparity in the current discussion (and no I don't know what the median for all UC employees is) is 5.7% of the US corporate average.
It may surprise you, given my tweetering, but it takes a lot for me to lose my shit in regular old academic bullshittery situations. It turns out that systemic refusal to acknowledge NIH MPI arrangements for local score keeping purposes is one of those things.
The ENTIRE reason for NIH adopting MPI was to allow credit to be appropriately distributed to the deserving. Because promotions, pay, accelerations, space, job opportunities, etc etc often depended, and depend now, on how many extramural dollars are attributed to a person.
Having been on study sections before and after the change I can assure you this was the rapidest and most completely / universally adopted change to grant review.
NIDA had a 12% success rate for unsolicited RPG proposals versus 28% for those funded via RFA. NIAAA ran 16%/15%. NIGMS, wait for it, 28%/90%. NIA 22%/38%. NINDS 18%/26%. NIMH 20%/27%
and yes it is super annoying they don't let you flip from success rates to number funded to dollars awarded. Right? if an IC does one tiny RFA and funds all of the apps, it may not matter much to the unsolicited rate. otoh, if they fund half through RFA, that's another matter.
I say this with regularity but a lot of biomedical scientists really fucked up by not taking enough classes from the Psychology Department as undergraduates. Knowing something about the many ways our stupid brains fool us should be foundational knowledge for a BA/BS degree.
Experimental Psych education covers a lot of “counter-intuitive” (🤷♂️) findings that illustrate how what seems to us to be correct really isn’t. It also spends a bit of time showing why even when the “intuitive” result is true, we need to generate evidence for it.
Central tendency. Variation around that central tendency. Overlapping distributions. We should inculcate basic statistical thinking much, much better in secondary school, but we don’t. Psych classes can be the last chance.
We do need to talk just a little bit about Snidely Whiplash in the context of NIH grant award disparity and the thinking of our white colleagues who are gradually realizing just how they are a part of white supremacy this week.
The Gither and Hoppe findings seem new to at least some of you so I'm going to tread what is old ground for others of you.
The initial reaction to Ginther was hot denial.
From the NIH, which continues to pursue denial *that they are in any way responsible* for any disparate grant awards to white over Black applicants. Yes. That's how they deployed Hoppe. That's how they deployed the follow-up Ginther et al 2018 pmlegacy.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30427864
This is the systemic racism you have known about *in your profession* since 2011, my dear white handwringing friends. The systemic racism that you benefit from. Professionally and therefore financially. Wealth buildingly.
You are not stupid. You know how the award or lack thereof of a grant at any time affects a career.
You have just admitted in several ways yesterday that you understand these are entirely subjective choices about what to fund.