Send us a link
Scientists need ways to evaluate themselves and their colleagues. These evaluations are necessary for better everyday management: hiring, promotions, awarding grants and so on. One evaluation metric has dominated these decisions, and that is doing more harm than good.
Most academic papers today are published only after some academic peers have had a chance to review the merits and limitations of the work. This seems like a good idea, but there is a growing movement that wants to retort as Albert Einstein did to such a review process.
Higher education needs to break down the barriers that block pathways to cross-subject study.
Although approximately 50% of PhD students and postdoctoral scientists are female, males run the majority of research laboratories. Despite some reform over the past three decades, there is still an exodus of female scientists from academic research at the transitional stage between a postdoctoral researcher and laboratory head.
With only one in five National Health and Medical Research Council ( NHMRC) grant applications successful, and a similar rate for Australian Research Council ( ARC) Discovery grants, it's little wonder researchers are looking to alternate forms of funding - one of which being crowdfunding.
I've heard that we should stop talking about "pure" science and "applied" science; that we should only be talking about "good" science and "bad" science. Last year, CSIRO Chief Executive Megan Clark said as much during question time at her National Press Club address, and this year I heard it recommended again at the Universities Australia Conference.
