From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Sat Feb 01 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!IS.DAL.CA!tmiyake
From: tmiyake@IS.DAL.CA (Tsutomu Miyake)
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: Glass wares
Date: 2 Feb 1997 04:44:45 -0800
Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology
Lines: 39
Sender: daemon@net.bio.net
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <199702021245.IAA29840@is.dal.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net
Used chemistry extraction quip, in prime condition for sale.
I am selling the following Pyrex chemistry laboratory items.
The glass is in excellent condition, with no cracks or flaws,
1). Glass condensor (24/29) with 3 spouts, 2 flows ends and internal
glass spiral arrangement
2). Galss condensor (24/40) with 3 spouts, 2 flow ends and interal glass
spiral arrangement
3). Glass condensor (24/40), opposite end-opening, frosted, 2 smaller
spouts on opposite ends,
internal glass bulb arrangement
4). Glass condensor (55/50), opposite end openings, 2 small spouts on
opposite ends. Internal glass
bulb arrangement
5) Glass condensor (34/45) - identical to #4 except smaller
6) Vitro 24/40 condensor, bowl-shaped with arm that connects to main
glass tube
7) 1000 ml 24/40 bowl-shaped flask with spout controlled by a glass valve
8) 35/20 interjoint glassware
Prices of the above items are negotiable ; however, several times are
worth between $500 and $ 1000.
If you need more information, feel free to e-mail or phone.
Thank you for your time
Please Contact:
Janet Vaglia
e-mail: jvaglia@is2.dal.ca
Work phone: 902-494-3335 (Dalhousie University, Biology, Halifax, Nova
Scotia)
From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Sun Feb 02 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!BIOLOGY.WATSTAR.UWATERLOO.CA!WLMERTZ
From: WLMERTZ@BIOLOGY.WATSTAR.UWATERLOO.CA (Wendy Mertz)
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: Tenure Track Asst. or Assoc. Professorship - Microbiology, Dept. of Biology, U. of Waterloo
Date: 3 Feb 1997 11:32:52 -0800
Organization: University of Waterloo
Lines: 81
Sender: daemon@net.bio.net
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <32F667C5.76A3@BIOLOGY.Watstar.UWaterloo.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------7FB87EFF3CE8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Please post the attached "faculty position available" to your newsgroup.
Please let me know if it worked.
Thank you,
------------------------------------------------
Wendy Mertz
Secretary to the Chair
Dept. of Biology
University of Waterloo
519-888-4567 ext. 3943
FAX 519-746-0614
--------------7FB87EFF3CE8
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii; name="position.html"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="position.html"
Content-Base: "http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/biolog
y/announc/position.html"
Positions Available
Department of Biology, University of Waterloo
Microbiology Faculty Position
The Department of Biology of the University of
Waterloo invites applications for a TENURE TRACK position at the ASSISTANT
or ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR level. Applicants must have a Ph.D. in microbiology,
and be prepared to establish an active research program in environmental
microbiology, the biotechnology applications of microbiology or similar
areas. Duties include research, teaching at the undergraduate and graduate
levels in microbiology, and graduate student supervision.
Salary will be commensurate with qualifications
and experience. Applicants should send their curriculum vitae, the names
of three individuals willing to furnish letters of reference, and an outline
(1-2 pages) of their proposed research program to:
Dr. William D. Taylor, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology, Faculty
of Science, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, N2L 3G1 CANADA.
The closing date for applications is March
31, 1997.
In accordance with Canadian immigration requirements,
this advertisement is directed to Canadian citizens and permanent residents.
The University of Waterloo encourages applications from all qualified individuals,
including women, members of visible minorities, native peoples, and persons
with disabilities. This appointment is subject to the availability
of funds.
Last updated January 21, 1997 / eliza@biology.watstar.uwaterloo.ca
This page has been visited
![[counter]](http://www.science.uwaterloo.ca/cgi-bin/count?/fsys1/.software/share/wwwdata-1.0_sci/data/htdocs/biology/announc/count.htm)
times since January 31, 1997.
--------------7FB87EFF3CE8--
From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Tue Feb 04 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!rutgers!uwm.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!Quza.UK.peer!news.cableinet.co.uk!newshost.wildnet.co.uk!proweb!usenet
From: "Fred Saunders"
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: INTERNET PRIVACY!
Date: 5 Feb 1997 12:30:42 GMT
Organization: Webtronix
Lines: 14
Message-ID: <01bc1360$203eb560$1f16bcc3@fred.webtronix>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp01.webtronix.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Internet News 4.70.1155
DID YOU KNOW THAT AS YOU SURF THE NET, YOU LEAVE TRAILS.
EVERY PICTURE THAT YOU HAVE EVER VIEWED OR DOWNLOADED IS
RECORDED WITHIN YOUR BROWSER!
WHEN YOU VISIT A SITE, YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS AND USER NAME ARE
SUBMITTED WITHOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE!
FOR MORE INFO, CHECK OUT THE FOLLOWING URL.
http://www.webtronix.co.uk/wsc.htm
From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Sat Feb 08 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!internet!biosci!not-for-mail
From: biohelp (BIOSCI Administrator)
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: BIOSCI/bionet miniFAQ & Fundraiser
Date: 9 Feb 1997 02:00:13 -0800
Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology
Lines: 239
Sender: daemon@net.bio.net
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <199702091000.CAA08902@net.bio.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net
(LAST REVISION: 30-JUL-95)
This BIOSCI "miniFAQ" is designed to answer the questions that come up
the *most frequently*. The main BIOSCI FAQ (Frequently Asked
Questions) is accessible on the World Wide Web at URL
http://www.bio.net/.
If you can not find an answer to your question in this or other
documentation, the BIOSCI technical support staff answers e-mail
queries sent to
biosci-help@net.bio.net
We can only answer questions about the use of the newsgroups and
mailing lists. We unfortunately do not have the staff to do Internet
information searches or answer scientific questions. Please post
those to the appropriate BIOSCI/bionet newsgroups.
Contents:
--------
0) BIOSCI NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT!!
1) Using the WWW to access the BIOSCI/bionet newsgroups.
2) What to do about "spams," i.e., junk mail, ads, etc.
3) Examples of subscribing and unsubscribing to the mailing lists.
4) The BIOSCI user address and research interest directory.
0) BIOSCI NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT!!
------------------------------
BIOSCI's government funding has been expended, and we are now
operating solely from advertising revenue that we have raised from our
Web site at http://www.bio.net/. We need just a few minutes of your
time to help us serve you.
You can do two important things which will take very little time for
you individually and will immensely help us continue to help you.
First, please use our WWW system at http://www.bio.net/ to access the
archives. You can post or reply to messages via your Web browser as
described in item #1 below. Your usage helps attract sponsors. If you
contact any of our sponsors, please be sure to thank them for
supporting BIOSCI. It is critical for them to get this feedback if
they are to continue their sponsorship for the long term.
Second, if you work for a company or organization that provides
products or services of interest to the biology community, please pass
this message on to your marketing or marketing communications
department or other appropriate group. Please ask them to help
support BIOSCI by sponsoring our Web site and explain the uses and
benefits of the system to the biology community. If they are
interested, they can then contact us for further information at our
tech support address, biosci-help@net.bio.net.
1) Using the WWW to access the BIOSCI/bionet newsgroups.
--------------------------------------------------------
As of 10 December 1995, all BIOSCI/bionet full newsgroups are
accessible through the World Wide Web (WWW) at URL http://www.bio.net.
One can read and reply publicly or privately to both recent postings
and archived messages through one's Web browser if it is configured
properly to send e-mail. Each newsgroup is equipped with its own WAIS
index. The main BIOSCI home page also has access to the BIO-JOURNALS
Table of Contents database WAIS index and the BIOSCI user address
database described in another item further below.
2) What to do about "spams," i.e., junk mail, ads, etc.
-------------------------------------------------------
BIOSCI is a set of parallel USENET newsgroups (the "bionet" groups),
mailing lists, and a hypermail archive at URL http://www.bio.net/.
The same postings are distributed on all media (except for a small
number of mailing-list-only groups at net.bio.net). Unfortunately it
is becoming a despicable practice on the Internet (by a few people out
to make a fast buck) to do automated mass postings to thousands of
newsgroups and mailing lists. These attempts to grab free advertising
are refered to as "spams" in the usual, somewhat boneheaded, net
terminology. USENET is more susceptible to this practice, and many
spams originate on the USENET groups and then are passed on to the
mailing lists. However, spammers also get lists of mailing addresses
and hit these too, so neither medium is immune.
What should you do personally if you get junk mail?
---------------------------------------------------
Just delete it and move on without reading it further. Filing a
protest is becoming increasingly useless because spammers are often
disguising the addresses where the messages are sent from. Unless you
really understand Internet mail systems, your attempt at protest by
sending replies to the message will often end up being sent to the
address of an innocent person that the spammer is victimizing.
What can BIOSCI/bionet do to protect its newsgroups?
----------------------------------------------------
The only solution currently available is to moderate the newsgroup.
If this newsgroup is already moderated, then you are in good shape.
Moderation protects the USENET distribution from about 95% of the
spams that are being sent to date and protects the mailing lists
completely. Moderation means, however, that someone has to take the
time to review each message before it goes out. We have set up
software here that simply allows the moderator to forward to an
address at net.bio.net messages that (s)he wishes to have distributed.
This takes no more time than that needed to read the message and pass
it on, say about 1 min. per message.
Most newsgroups currently have a discussion leader who is responsible
for their newsgroup. The discussions leaders and their e-mail
addresses are listed in the BIOSCI Information Sheet which is
available on the Web at http://www.bio.net/. If a newsgroup is being
hit with too many junk postings, please contact the discussion leader
for that group and see if there is interest in moderating the group.
Please do not assume that by simply posting a complaint to the
newsgroup itself, anyone on the BIOSCI staff will act on your
complaint. With close to 100 newsgroups to run, the BIOSCI staff has
to rely on the discussion leaders of each newsgroup to report problems
directly to us at biosci-help@net.bio.net.
We will moderate any of our newsgroups if the discussion leader tells
us that the readership of the group wishes to do so and if a moderator
is willing to do the work. For most BIOSCI/bionet groups, this
entails only a few minutes of work each day.
Moderating a newsgroup will resolve probably 95% of the junk postings
on the USENET distribution. Unfortunately there are easy ways for
determined spammers to override the moderation mechanism on USENET,
but we can protect our e-mail subscribers from unwanted postings if
the newsgroup is moderated. You can also access our newsgroups over
the WWW at URL http://www.bio.net. While this Web interface will not
stop spammers from trying to post to the groups, this will give you
yet another way, besides using USENET news, to keep the junk out of
your personal mail files. For those of you with local USENET news
systems, the Web interface will also give you faster access to new
newsgroups and recent postings.
3) Examples of subscribing and unsubscribing to the mailing lists.
------------------------------------------------------------------
PLEASE NOTE: The BIOSCI management does NOT act on
subscription/unsubscription requests that are posted improperly to the
newsgroups and mailing lists. People who do this only bother everyone
on the lists to no avail. Please be sure to follow the proper
procedures below.
Gory details are in the BIOSCI Information sheets on the Web at
http://www.bio.net. Below we give an example utilizing the
METHODS-AND-REAGENTS list at both of our two BIOSCI sites:
Users in the Americas and Pacific Rim countries who use the BIOSCI
------------------------------------------------------------------
node at computer net.bio.net:
----------------------------
A) Determine the "listname" which is the <=8 character mail address
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
for the group. These can be found in the BIOSCI Info. Sheet. For
the METHODS-AND-REAGENTS group the mailing address is
methods@net.bio.net. The listname is the portion of the address to
the left of the @ sign, i.e., "methods". The listname is used with
the "subscribe" and "unsubscribe" commands illustrated below.
B) Mail all commands in the body of a mail message addressed to
biosci-server@net.bio.net. Do NOT send commands to the newsgroup
posting addresses! Leave the Subject: line blank, any text on it
will be ignored.
C) In the body of your message put one or more of the following
commands with an "end" command on the last line, e.g.,
subscribe methods
unsubscribe methods
end
Do NOT put your e-mail address or other text on these lines. The
server only allows you to cancel your subscription if the address
on your mail header matches the address on our mailing list.
Please ask for help at biosci-help@net.bio.net if your address has
changed, e.g., if you know you are on the list but the server tells
you that you are not a member.
Users in Europe, Africa, and Central Asia who use the BIOSCI node at
--------------------------------------------------------------------
computer daresbury.ac.uk (also known as dl.ac.uk):
-------------------------------------------------
To subscribe and unsubscribe to/from the BIOSCI lists, you need to
specify the full USENET newsgroup name with "bionet-news." prepended.
The USENET newsgroup names are listed in the BIOSCI Information sheet
on the Web at http://www.bio.net/. For the METHODS-AND-REAGENTS list
the USENET newsgroup name is bionet.molbio.methds-reagnts, thus the
appropriate commands are
sub bionet-news.bionet.molbio.methds-reagnts
unsub bionet-news.bionet.molbio.methds-reagnts
These commands are included in a message addressed to mxt@dl.ac.uk,
NOT to the newsgroup mailing addresses. As usual, include the text in
the body of the message as text on the Subject: line is ignored.
To unsubscribe from all the lists at the UK node, use
unsub bionet-news
Please note that if the address in the list is different than the one
in your mail message header, you will not be able to unsubscribe by
this method. If you have problems, please mail biosci@daresbury.ac.uk.
4) The BIOSCI user address and research interest directory.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Please take this opportunity to add your name, address, and research
interest information to the BIOSCI User Address Database if you have
not already done so.
You can fill out the address form directly through our Web page at URL
http://www.bio.net/adrform.html.
The address database is reindexed nightly for WWW access (the URL is
http://www.bio.net/). If you are not directly on the Internet but can
reach it by e-mail, please use our waismail server to access the user
directory. waismail use is described above. You can also request a
user address form by e-mail from biosci-help@net.bio.net.
Please check your database entry from time-to-time to see if your
address information is still up-to-date. Because of our limited
personnel resources, we ask that you resubmit a *complete* form to
revise your entry; we only replace complete entries and do not have
resources to edit old forms.
Sincerely,
Dave Kristofferson
BIOSCI/bionet Manager
biosci-help@net.bio.net
From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Tue Feb 11 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!FHS.CSU.MCMASTER.CA!mcpharm
From: mcpharm@FHS.CSU.MCMASTER.CA (Ashok Grover)
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: (none)
Date: 12 Feb 1997 14:39:52 -0800
Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology
Lines: 7
Sender: daemon@net.bio.net
Distribution: world
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net
Check out the
ELECTRONIC JOURNAL CLUB IN PHARMACOLOGY
web site
http://www-fhs.mcmaster.ca/mcpharm/
From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Sat Feb 15 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!MAIL.NETSHOP.NET!simon
From: simon@MAIL.NETSHOP.NET (Simon Franklin)
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: (none)
Date: 16 Feb 1997 03:37:52 -0800
Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology
Lines: 14
Sender: daemon@net.bio.net
Distribution: world
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net
SUBSCRIBE SIMON FRANKLIN
==========================================================================
==========================================================================
Simon Franklin
Wildfor Consultants
simon@netshop.net
Box 123
Telkwa, B.C.
V0J 2X0
(604)846-9045
From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Tue Feb 18 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!rutgers.rutgers.edu!gatech!csulb.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!news-peer.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.bc.net!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!news
From: Raymond Turner
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: PDF position
Date: 19 Feb 1997 14:58:17 GMT
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Lines: 40
Message-ID: <5ef4e9$11o6@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: nordegg.biochem.ualberta.ca
Metal Resistance in Bacteria
Post Doctoral position at the University of Alberta
A Post-Doctoral position is available to work on the biochemistry and
microbiology of potassium tellurite resistance mechanisms in Gram-
negative bacteria. A number of tellurite (TeO32-) resistance determinants
have been cloned and sequenced from a variety of resistance plasmids.
Their biochemical mechanisms of resistance are, as yet, poorly
understood. The candidate will be involved in furthering the
understanding of tellurite biochemistry in Gram-negative bacteria. This
challenging project has required a degree of interdisciplinary research.
Candidates should have a strong background in one or more of the
following disciplines: molecular biology, bacteriology, biochemistry
(metabolism and/or enzymology), or inorganic chemistry. The research
is funded through a Medical Research Council Grant, although the
candidate would be required to apply for a PDF fellowship within a year.
Salary will commensurate based on experience and MRC guidelines.
Sample references.
Walter, E. G., and D. E. Taylor. 1992. Plasmid-mediated resistance to
tellurite: Expressed and Cryptic. Plasmids. 27:52-64.
Taylor, D. E., Y. Hou, R. J. Turner, and J. H. Weiner. 1994. Location of a
potassium tellurite resistance operon (tehAtehB) within the terminus of
Escherichia coli K-12. J. Bacteriol. 176:2740-2742.
Turner, R. J., J. H. Weiner, and D. E. Taylor. 1995. The tellurite-
resistance determinants tehAtehB and klaAklaBtelB have different
biochemical requirements. Microbiology. 141:3133-3140.
Qualified and interested applicants should send a covering letter,
curriculum vitae, and list of three references to:
Dr. Diane E. Taylor
Professor
Department of Medical Microbiology
& Immunology
1-28 Medical Sciences Building
University of Alberta,
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, T6G 2H7
tel: (403) 492-2558
fax: (403) 492-7521
Email: Diane.Taylor@UAlberta.ca
From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Tue Feb 18 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!EM.AGR.CA!FarnworthEd
From: FarnworthEd@EM.AGR.CA (Edward Farnworth)
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: thanks
Date: 19 Feb 1997 07:20:28 -0800
Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology
Lines: 12
Sender: daemon@net.bio.net
Distribution: world
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net
I think the Canadian Federation of Biological Societies (CFBS) should get
a big thank-you. It was due to the efforts of the CFBS (Paul Hough,
Dennis Fitzpatrick and others), that the idea of including money for
research and development be included as part of the infrastructure
program. It took a lot of meetings and subtle pressure to get science onto
the government's agenda and to make it a big enough priority to set aside
money in the federal budget. Well it happened. It is sometimes easy to
ask what does an organization like the CFBS do for me. All too often the
work doesn't get publicized or recognized. So I'm here to give credit
where credit is due. Well done.
Ted Farnworth
From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Tue Feb 18 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!FHS.CSU.MCMASTER.CA!mcpharm
From: mcpharm@FHS.CSU.MCMASTER.CA (Ashok Grover)
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: (none)
Date: 19 Feb 1997 08:07:09 -0800
Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology
Lines: 7
Sender: daemon@net.bio.net
Distribution: world
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net
Check out the
ELECTRONIC JOURNAL CLUB IN PHARMACOLOGY
web site
http://www-fhs.mcmaster.ca/mcpharm/
From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Tue Feb 18 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA!berezin
From: berezin@MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA (Alexander Berezin)
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: Re: RESEARCH FUNDING
Date: 19 Feb 1997 10:00:35 -0800
Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology
Lines: 60
Sender: daemon@net.bio.net
Distribution: world
Message-ID:
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net
SOME FIGURES - REPLY to Dr. Hilliker
(please see below).
On Wed, 19 Feb 1997, Arthur J Hilliker wrote:
> Thank you for your memo and attachments which recommends funding all
> excellent NSERC and MRC applications. I cannot support this notion having
> served on both NSERC and MRC grant selection panels, although I have some
> sympathy with it. I especially cannot support it for NSERC.
>
> The problem is that if you fund all worthy projects the amount of funding
> would be so little as to make the grants ineffective. Average NSERC grants
> are less than 40,000 dollars for most panels.
This argument fails to convince me. I have heard it
before. Contrary to what you suggest, there is (almost) no
minimal amount of grant which will be "ineffective". Have
you ever heard anybody RETURNED the grant because it
was "too low" ?
Despite that being presently FUNDED, I know what means
to be totally infunded. For many faculty members I know, the
ONLY research budget they have (or had for some years) is
the annual faculty allownces, which (in my university)
$ 1,100 per year ( $ 3 per day !). And even this people
do NOT consider useless and quite often squeze some
good mileage from it.
In many areas, grants bettween $ 5,000 to $ 10,000 will be
considered as a great help by many presently unfunded
researchers, and grants of $ 20 K as a unbeleivably generous.
Of course, people on small grants should be more
pro-active in search of cooperators (to pool the resources),
but when you have ZERO funding you can't even start this.
No-one will even talk to a beggar.
Sorry, but your thesis of "mininally-useful" research
grant is a clear fallacy.
A lthough I am in general
> agreement with spreading the money around the problem is that we are
> approaching the lower level of funding sufficient to provide useful
> funding, at least in my discipline, molecular biology and genetics. If we
> funded all worthy applicants the average level of funding would be so low
> that the overall productivity of the research community would decline
> rather than increase.
>
> Although I cannot speak on behalf of either NSERC or MRC, the goals of the
> two councils are different. NSERC support long term programs through its
> operating grants, MRC does support programs but the specific project(s)
> outlined in the proposal are more important in determining whether a grant
> if funded. Quite frankly, reducing the MRC average by awarding money to
> all worthy applications would mean that many awards would be grossly
> insufficient to undertake the project proposed.
>
> A.J. Hilliker
>
>
From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Tue Feb 18 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!uoguelph.ca!ahillike
From: ahillike@uoguelph.ca (Arthur J Hilliker)
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: Re: RESEARCH FUNDING
Date: 19 Feb 1997 09:34:20 -0800
Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology
Lines: 25
Sender: daemon@net.bio.net
Distribution: world
Message-ID:
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net
Thank you for your memo and attachments which recommends funding all
excellent NSERC and MRC applications. I cannot support this notion having
served on both NSERC and MRC grant selection panels, although I have some
sympathy with it. I especially cannot support it for NSERC.
The problem is that if you fund all worthy projects the amount of funding
would be so little as to make the grants ineffective. Average NSERC grants
are less than 40,000 dollars for most panels. Although I am in general
agreement with spreading the money around the problem is that we are
approaching the lower level of funding sufficient to provide useful
funding, at least in my discipline, molecular biology and genetics. If we
funded all worthy applicants the average level of funding would be so low
that the overall productivity of the research community would decline
rather than increase.
Although I cannot speak on behalf of either NSERC or MRC, the goals of the
two councils are different. NSERC support long term programs through its
operating grants, MRC does support programs but the specific project(s)
outlined in the proposal are more important in determining whether a grant
if funded. Quite frankly, reducing the MRC average by awarding money to
all worthy applications would mean that many awards would be grossly
insufficient to undertake the project proposed.
A.J. Hilliker
From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Tue Feb 18 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA!berezin
From: berezin@MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA (Alexander Berezin)
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: RESEARCH FUNDING
Date: 19 Feb 1997 09:14:34 -0800
Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology
Lines: 195
Sender: daemon@net.bio.net
Distribution: world
Message-ID:
References: <9408311525.AA72425@acs3.acs.ucalgary.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net
(apologies for possible multiple mailings)
=================================================
CANADIAN RESEARCH FUNDING
GOOD NEWS:
More research dollars allocated in the new Canadian
Federal Budget. A new Funding Agency is created,
additionally to the existing ones.
BAD (OR PERHAPS QUESTIONABLE) NEWS:
There is no clear guarantee that the new money will
be used efficiently or end up in where it needed
the most.
The following article was published in THE HAMILTON
SPECTATOR (Hamilton, Ontario, Canada) on Wednesday,
February 19, 1997 - next day the Canadian Government
announced its budget for the next fiscal year. The
budget provides some impressive increase of the
research funding to the universities. Nevertheless,
this positively sounding news, will undoubtedly be
taken by many with a doze of scepticism, in view of
the fundamental defects of the grant allocation
system. The following article summarizes the main
(but not all) reasons for such scepticism.
We encourage re-posting of this article, and a broad
discussion of the points it raises. It will be
especially interesting to hear from the current (and
past) members of the Grant Selection Panels of MRC,
NSERC, and SSHRC and other funding agencies (including
NIH, NSF, etc).
Alexander Berezin,
McMaster University,
Hamilton, Ontario
The HAMILTON SPECTATOR article:
=======================================
BETTER RESEARCH SPENDING, NOT MORE
By Alexander Berezin and Richard Gordon
RESEARCH FUNDING AGENCIES NEED TO DO A FAIRER
JOB BEFORE THEY CAN JUSTIFY SPENDING MORE MONEY,
PROFESSORS FROM McMASTER AND UNIVERSITY OF
MANITOBA ARGUE
The biggest sources of research funding for universities
are the three federal Research Funding Councils, the
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
(NSERC), the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Councils (SSHRC).
A new source, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation,
was announced in yesterday's budget, to provide money
to modernize research facilities.
The widespread impression is that the Councils do their
best to foster research excellence and innovation and
that the only problem they have is the insufficient
level of government funding.
Unfortunately, there are fundamental flaws in the
operating methods of the research councils that reduce
their efficiency in supporting excellence. The same
may be true of the new foundation, which a budget
document says will "draw on the expertise and peer
review assessment procedures of the granting councils".
The councils themselves have admitted that many
researchers receive evaluations of excellence, but
nevertheless do not receive funding because the
granting agencies run out of funds before getting to
their particular excellent proposal.
Determining which of two excellent proposals will be
funded and which goes unfunded is never easy. This
means that committees must decide who is funded and
who isn't based on differences that are largely
irrelevant to the potential contribution of a
particular proposed research project.
There are two possible solutions. The first would be
to provide enough funding that all excellent programs
get funding at the level requested by the applicants.
This is clearly impossible in our current political
state of restraint. Since the pie is limited, perhaps
what we should be asking is, are we managing the pie
and the cutting the pieces fairly ? To that we must
give a resounding no.
According to its latest report, the MRC approves
about 600 new grants a year, but is currently turning
down another 350 proposals that meet its standards of
excellence. The question than boils down to the
following: If you have 600 + 350 = 950 proposals
a year which satisfy MRC standards of excellence,
what stops MRC from funding them all ? Of course,
without additional money for grants, this will
mean that the average grant size should drop to
600/950 = 63 per cent of the present average. But
then there would be no excellent researchers
without funds.
A reduction to 63 per cent may appear severe to
the already funded researcher. But for the
researcher who gets nothing now, that amount
would be considered a great boon.
FUND ALL EXCELLENT PROPOSALS
Tough as it appears, this simple change would allow
all "excellent" researchers to be funded and implement
at least the top of their research priorities.
Furthermore, because greater scarcity will undoubtedly
result in a much more careful setting of priorities,
the overall quality of research is likely to increase,
not decrease, and all "excellent" projects will be
funded on at least some level, instead of the present
absurd situation when about one third of all
"excellent" researchers get nothing.
This is the first thing the Councils should do before
asking the government for "more money". Those who are
presently involved in the campaign for "more money to
Funding Councils", should ask the councils' presidents
what are the guarantees that "extra" money will be
used to fund the presently unfunded, instead of being
distributed among those who are already well-funded.
The present structure of the Funding Councils provides
no such guarantees.
The existing composition of Funding Councils is such
that the key members of the grant selection panels are
grant recipients themselves. Despite assurances of the
contrary, this constitutes a fundamental conflict
of interest.
Those who decide how to cut the pie are in a position
to be tempted to ensure they get their own piece first.
Members of NSERC committees are required to step out
of the meeting room when their own grant applications
are discussed. However, this is hardly convincing.
There is still the temptation - or perception of the
opportunity - to play a game "I fund you, you fund
me" with fellow committee members. Cases of committee
members being denied grants are virtually unheard of.
We believe that the prime reason for denying small
operating grants to scores of excellent researchers
is the proven fact that many of them can do good
research on small budgets. The per-dollar efficiency
of many small scale projects is actually much higher
than for many well funded (or overfunded) elite groups.
Therefore, it is politically safer for the system to
leave many capable scientists completely unfunded
instead of giving them small grants. Many unfunded
researchers manage to do a high quality research on
cash taken from their personal salaries. But because
they are "officially unfunded" ("non-persons" in
George Orwell's terminology), their contributions
are not figured into overall NSERC reporting. This
makes the fact of their research activity less
threatening to the grantsmanship establishment.
The above defects can and should be corrected without
any "new money". We need restoration of the "arms
length" principle that those who distribute the
research funds should not themselves be the
beneficiaries of the funding system.
This would be a first step in the right direction
towards more productive and efficient use of Canadian
research dollars. Only then will we be able to
determine if we really have genuine research
underfunding, or just poor management of available
resources.
----------------------------------------------
Alexander Berezin is a professor of engineering
physics at McMaster University. Richard Gordon
is a professor of Radiology at the University of
Manitoba.
(end of HAMILTON SPECTATOR article)
============================================
From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Tue Feb 18 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!PHYSIOLOGY.UWO.CA!gkidder
From: gkidder@PHYSIOLOGY.UWO.CA ("Dr. Gerald Kidder")
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: budget
Date: 19 Feb 1997 09:12:54 -0800
Organization: Univ. of Western Ontario, Canada
Lines: 16
Sender: daemon@net.bio.net
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <760525432B7@physiology.uwo.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net
I heartily endorse Warren Gallin's comments about the good news/bad
news for basic research infrastructure in yesterday's federal budget
speech. The government has still only gotten part of the message, so our
work is not done.
Gerald M. Kidder, Ph.D.
Department of Physiology
The University of Western Ontario
London, Ontario N6A 5C1, Canada
TEL: 519-661-3132
FAX: 519-661-3827
E-mail: gkidder@physiology.uwo.ca
Website: www.physiology.uwo.ca/PhysiologyWeb/kidder.htm
Direct courier deliveries to Medical Sciences Building, dock 25.
From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Tue Feb 18 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA!berezin
From: berezin@MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA (Alexander Berezin)
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: RESEARC FUNDING
Date: 19 Feb 1997 09:01:30 -0800
Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology
Lines: 198
Sender: daemon@net.bio.net
Distribution: world
Message-ID:
References: <199702191615.IAA17329@net.bio.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net
On 19 Feb 1997, Mark Bisby wrote:
> ... Of course, we cannot rest now the Government has
> recognised the importance of
> research: the granting councils will still be cut 3% this year.
=================================================
CANADIAN RESEARCH FUNDING
GOOD NEWS:
More research dollars allocated in the new Canadian
Federal Budget. A new Funding Agency is created,
additionally to the existing ones.
BAD (OR PERHAPS QUESTIONABLE) NEWS:
There is no clear guarantee that the new money will
be used efficiently or end up in where it needed
the most.
The following article was published in THE HAMILTON
SPECTATOR (Hamilton, Ontario, Canada) on Wednesday,
February 19, 1997 - next day the Canadian Government
announced its budget for the next fiscal year. The
budget provides some impressive increase of the
research funding to the universities. Nevertheless,
this positively sounding news, will undoubtedly be
taken by many with a doze of scepticism, in view of
the fundamental defects of the grant allocation
system. The following article summarizes the main
(but not all) reasons for such scepticism.
We encourage re-posting of this article, and a broad
discussion of the points it raises. It will be
especially interesting to hear from the current (and
past) members of the Grant Selection Panels of MRC,
NSERC, and SSHRC and other funding agencies (including
NIH, NSF, etc).
Alexander Berezin,
McMaster University,
Hamilton, Ontario
The HAMILTON SPECTATOR article:
=======================================
BETTER RESEARCH SPENDING, NOT MORE
By Alexander Berezin and Richard Gordon
RESEARCH FUNDING AGENCIES NEED TO DO A FAIRER
JOB BEFORE THEY CAN JUSTIFY SPENDING MORE MONEY,
PROFESSORS FROM McMASTER AND UNIVERSITY OF
MANITOBA ARGUE
The biggest sources of research funding for universities
are the three federal Research Funding Councils, the
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
(NSERC), the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Councils (SSHRC).
A new source, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation,
was announced in yesterday's budget, to provide money
to modernize research facilities.
The widespread impression is that the Councils do their
best to foster research excellence and innovation and
that the only problem they have is the insufficient
level of government funding.
Unfortunately, there are fundamental flaws in the
operating methods of the research councils that reduce
their efficiency in supporting excellence. The same
may be true of the new foundation, which a budget
document says will "draw on the expertise and peer
review assessment procedures of the granting councils".
The councils themselves have admitted that many
researchers receive evaluations of excellence, but
nevertheless do not receive funding because the
granting agencies run out of funds before getting to
their particular excellent proposal.
Determining which of two excellent proposals will be
funded and which goes unfunded is never easy. This
means that committees must decide who is funded and
who isn't based on differences that are largely
irrelevant to the potential contribution of a
particular proposed research project.
There are two possible solutions. The first would be
to provide enough funding that all excellent programs
get funding at the level requested by the applicants.
This is clearly impossible in our current political
state of restraint. Since the pie is limited, perhaps
what we should be asking is, are we managing the pie
and the cutting the pieces fairly ? To that we must
give a resounding no.
According to its latest report, the MRC approves
about 600 new grants a year, but is currently turning
down another 350 proposals that meet its standards of
excellence. The question than boils down to the
following: If you have 600 + 350 = 950 proposals
a year which satisfy MRC standards of excellence,
what stops MRC from funding them all ? Of course,
without additional money for grants, this will
mean that the average grant size should drop to
600/950 = 63 per cent of the present average. But
then there would be no excellent researchers
without funds.
A reduction to 63 per cent may appear severe to
the already funded researcher. But for the
researcher who gets nothing now, that amount
would be considered a great boon.
FUND ALL EXCELLENT PROPOSALS
Tough as it appears, this simple change would allow
all "excellent" researchers to be funded and implement
at least the top of their research priorities.
Furthermore, because greater scarcity will undoubtedly
result in a much more careful setting of priorities,
the overall quality of research is likely to increase,
not decrease, and all "excellent" projects will be
funded on at least some level, instead of the present
absurd situation when about one third of all
"excellent" researchers get nothing.
This is the first thing the Councils should do before
asking the government for "more money". Those who are
presently involved in the campaign for "more money to
Funding Councils", should ask the councils' presidents
what are the guarantees that "extra" money will be
used to fund the presently unfunded, instead of being
distributed among those who are already well-funded.
The present structure of the Funding Councils provides
no such guarantees.
The existing composition of Funding Councils is such
that the key members of the grant selection panels are
grant recipients themselves. Despite assurances of the
contrary, this constitutes a fundamental conflict
of interest.
Those who decide how to cut the pie are in a position
to be tempted to ensure they get their own piece first.
Members of NSERC committees are required to step out
of the meeting room when their own grant applications
are discussed. However, this is hardly convincing.
There is still the temptation - or perception of the
opportunity - to play a game "I fund you, you fund
me" with fellow committee members. Cases of committee
members being denied grants are virtually unheard of.
We believe that the prime reason for denying small
operating grants to scores of excellent researchers
is the proven fact that many of them can do good
research on small budgets. The per-dollar efficiency
of many small scale projects is actually much higher
than for many well funded (or overfunded) elite groups.
Therefore, it is politically safer for the system to
leave many capable scientists completely unfunded
instead of giving them small grants. Many unfunded
researchers manage to do a high quality research on
cash taken from their personal salaries. But because
they are "officially unfunded" ("non-persons" in
George Orwell's terminology), their contributions
are not figured into overall NSERC reporting. This
makes the fact of their research activity less
threatening to the grantsmanship establishment.
The above defects can and should be corrected without
any "new money". We need restoration of the "arms
length" principle that those who distribute the
research funds should not themselves be the
beneficiaries of the funding system.
This would be a first step in the right direction
towards more productive and efficient use of Canadian
research dollars. Only then will we be able to
determine if we really have genuine research
underfunding, or just poor management of available
resources.
----------------------------------------------
Alexander Berezin is a professor of engineering
physics at McMaster University. Richard Gordon
is a professor of Radiology at the University of
Manitoba.
(end of HAMILTON SPECTATOR article)
============================================
From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Tue Feb 18 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!SOL.YORKU.CA!FS300022
From: FS300022@SOL.YORKU.CA ("GEOFFREY HUNTER: GHUNTER@YORKU.CA")
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: Pertinent article Published by Berezin and Gordon.
Date: 19 Feb 1997 14:00:44 -0800
Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology
Lines: 219
Sender: daemon@net.bio.net
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <01IFLVHX8N4A8WW2SZ@Sol.YorkU.CA>
NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net
From: IN%"berezin@mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA" "Alexander Berezin" 19-FEB-1997 12:09:19.80
To: IN%"FS300022@Sol.YorkU.CA" "GEOFFREY HUNTER: GHUNTER@YORKU.CA"
CC: IN%"gordonr@cc.UManitoba.ca"
Subj: SPECTATOR ARTICLE
Return-path:
Received: from mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA (mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA)
by Sol.YorkU.CA (PMDF V5.0-6 #16473) id <01IFLLIQI6KG8WW5YK@Sol.YorkU.CA> for
FS300022@Sol.YorkU.CA; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:09:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from berezin@localhost) by mcmail.CIS.McMaster.CA (8.7.1/8.7.1)
id MAA23085; Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:08:58 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 12:08:58 -0500 (EST)
From: Alexander Berezin
Subject: SPECTATOR ARTICLE
In-reply-to: <01IF18EZUDMAHSJUSQ@Sol.YorkU.CA>
To: "GEOFFREY HUNTER: GHUNTER@YORKU.CA"
Cc: gordonr@cc.UManitoba.ca
Message-id:
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Geoff, you may consider reposting this
through your list - Alex
=================================================
CANADIAN RESEARCH FUNDING
GOOD NEWS:
More research dollars allocated in the new Canadian
Federal Budget. A new Funding Agency is created,
additionally to the existing ones.
BAD (OR PERHAPS QUESTIONABLE) NEWS:
There is no clear guarantee that the new money will
be used efficiently or end up in where it needed
the most.
The following article was published in THE HAMILTON
SPECTATOR (Hamilton, Ontario, Canada) on Wednesday,
February 19, 1997 - next day the Canadian Government
announced its budget for the next fiscal year. The
budget provides some impressive increase of the
research funding to the universities. Nevertheless,
this positively sounding news, will undoubtedly be
taken by many with a doze of scepticism, in view of
the fundamental defects of the grant allocation
system. The following article summarizes the main
(but not all) reasons for such scepticism.
We encourage re-posting of this article, and a broad
discussion of the points it raises. It will be
especially interesting to hear from the current (and
past) members of the Grant Selection Panels of MRC,
NSERC, and SSHRC and other funding agencies (including
NIH, NSF, etc).
Alexander Berezin,
McMaster University,
Hamilton, Ontario
The HAMILTON SPECTATOR article:
=======================================
BETTER RESEARCH SPENDING, NOT MORE
By Alexander Berezin and Richard Gordon
RESEARCH FUNDING AGENCIES NEED TO DO A FAIRER
JOB BEFORE THEY CAN JUSTIFY SPENDING MORE MONEY,
PROFESSORS FROM McMASTER AND UNIVERSITY OF
MANITOBA ARGUE
The biggest sources of research funding for universities
are the three federal Research Funding Councils, the
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council
(NSERC), the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Councils (SSHRC).
A new source, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation,
was announced in yesterday's budget, to provide money
to modernize research facilities.
The widespread impression is that the Councils do their
best to foster research excellence and innovation and
that the only problem they have is the insufficient
level of government funding.
Unfortunately, there are fundamental flaws in the
operating methods of the research councils that reduce
their efficiency in supporting excellence. The same
may be true of the new foundation, which a budget
document says will "draw on the expertise and peer
review assessment procedures of the granting councils".
The councils themselves have admitted that many
researchers receive evaluations of excellence, but
nevertheless do not receive funding because the
granting agencies run out of funds before getting to
their particular excellent proposal.
Determining which of two excellent proposals will be
funded and which goes unfunded is never easy. This
means that committees must decide who is funded and
who isn't based on differences that are largely
irrelevant to the potential contribution of a
particular proposed research project.
There are two possible solutions. The first would be
to provide enough funding that all excellent programs
get funding at the level requested by the applicants.
This is clearly impossible in our current political
state of restraint. Since the pie is limited, perhaps
what we should be asking is, are we managing the pie
and the cutting the pieces fairly ? To that we must
give a resounding no.
According to its latest report, the MRC approves
about 600 new grants a year, but is currently turning
down another 350 proposals that meet its standards of
excellence. The question than boils down to the
following: If you have 600 + 350 = 950 proposals
a year which satisfy MRC standards of excellence,
what stops MRC from funding them all ? Of course,
without additional money for grants, this will
mean that the average grant size should drop to
600/950 = 63 per cent of the present average. But
then there would be no excellent researchers
without funds.
A reduction to 63 per cent may appear severe to
the already funded researcher. But for the
researcher who gets nothing now, that amount
would be considered a great boon.
FUND ALL EXCELLENT PROPOSALS
Tough as it appears, this simple change would allow
all "excellent" researchers to be funded and implement
at least the top of their research priorities.
Furthermore, because greater scarcity will undoubtedly
result in a much more careful setting of priorities,
the overall quality of research is likely to increase,
not decrease, and all "excellent" projects will be
funded on at least some level, instead of the present
absurd situation when about one third of all
"excellent" researchers get nothing.
This is the first thing the Councils should do before
asking the government for "more money". Those who are
presently involved in the campaign for "more money to
Funding Councils", should ask the councils' presidents
what are the guarantees that "extra" money will be
used to fund the presently unfunded, instead of being
distributed among those who are already well-funded.
The present structure of the Funding Councils provides
no such guarantees.
The existing composition of Funding Councils is such
that the key members of the grant selection panels are
grant recipients themselves. Despite assurances of the
contrary, this constitutes a fundamental conflict
of interest.
Those who decide how to cut the pie are in a position
to be tempted to ensure they get their own piece first.
Members of NSERC committees are required to step out
of the meeting room when their own grant applications
are discussed. However, this is hardly convincing.
There is still the temptation - or perception of the
opportunity - to play a game "I fund you, you fund
me" with fellow committee members. Cases of committee
members being denied grants are virtually unheard of.
We believe that the prime reason for denying small
operating grants to scores of excellent researchers
is the proven fact that many of them can do good
research on small budgets. The per-dollar efficiency
of many small scale projects is actually much higher
than for many well funded (or overfunded) elite groups.
Therefore, it is politically safer for the system to
leave many capable scientists completely unfunded
instead of giving them small grants. Many unfunded
researchers manage to do a high quality research on
cash taken from their personal salaries. But because
they are "officially unfunded" ("non-persons" in
George Orwell's terminology), their contributions
are not figured into overall NSERC reporting. This
makes the fact of their research activity less
threatening to the grantsmanship establishment.
The above defects can and should be corrected without
any "new money". We need restoration of the "arms
length" principle that those who distribute the
research funds should not themselves be the
beneficiaries of the funding system.
This would be a first step in the right direction
towards more productive and efficient use of Canadian
research dollars. Only then will we be able to
determine if we really have genuine research
underfunding, or just poor management of available
resources.
----------------------------------------------
Alexander Berezin is a professor of engineering
physics at McMaster University. Richard Gordon
is a professor of Radiology at the University of
Manitoba.
(end of HAMILTON SPECTATOR article)
============================================
From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Tue Feb 18 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!IGS.NET!cfbssp
From: cfbssp@IGS.NET
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: On-Going Efforts
Date: 19 Feb 1997 11:58:38 -0800
Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology
Lines: 61
Sender: daemon@net.bio.net
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <199702191959.OAA03736@host.ott.igs.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net
Dear All,
I very much appreciate the many kind words that have come my way
concerning the efforts we in CFBS have made on behalf of the research
community. I must admit to a definite satisfaction in seeing proposals that
we have helped develop and pushed at every opportunity actually becoming
realities.
There is a new approach being used by the various science-based
organizations, and now a new sense of optimism that it works. Call it
collaboration, call it "getting our act together", call it co-operation,
call it whatever. The point is that there is real strength in numbers and
in defining the priorities to push for at any given time. There is no
question that the measures in the 1997 budget are only the first steps, and
that there are major areas to address now. But by being positive about
these programs, especially those concerning infrastructure and the NCE's,
we can help those in government who are committed to supporting research, to
work hard at getting new initiatives accepted and in place.
And there are supporters in government! John Manley and Jon Gerrard
have worked very hard at getting S&T on the front burner, and specifically
to get these programs off the ground. Their Executive Assistants, Tony
Macerollo and Dan Demers, respectively, have been absolutely key players in
seeing these programs come to pass. Other M.P.'s have also been key,
including Peter Adams from Peterborough, Morris Bodnar from Saskatoon, David
Walker from Winnipeg, Walt Lastuka from St. Catherines, and many others.
Tom Brzustowski at NSERC, Henry Friesen at MRC, Arthur Carty at NRC, Robert
Giroux at AUCC and a number of senior officials in Industry and Finance have
also played important roles. They all understand the importance of sustained
support for research, and they all know that these measures in the budget
are only part of the picture. By giving the government credit for realizing
these programs, we set the stage for the Ministers and M.P.s to put the next
building blocks in place.
I have just returned from the press conference at which John Manley
announced that John Evans would be the Chair of the Board for the new Canada
Foundation for Innovation. I have never seen so many media people at an
event dealing with S&T! They had several members of the Advisory Committee
on S&T present and, in discussions with them, they all underlined the
importance of the lobby effort by the various societies and organizations
and above all, the fact that these groups had worked collaboratively to
speak with one voice.
CFBS is at the centre of that collaborative effort, and is
recognized as a key player. This approach will continue. There remains
much to be done, and much to be re-done when the new Ministers and their
staffs come into the picture after the election, whenever that takes place.
However, more will be asked and expected of researchers, to make the case
for research, to highlight the importance of R&D with people they meet
within the community, and to support the efforts of their professional
societies. Joining, or renewing your membership in, CFBS would be a great
start! Cheers!
Paul
Paul Hough
Executive Director, CFBS
tel: (613) 225-8889
fax: (613) 225-9621
e-mail: cfbssp@igs.net
From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Tue Feb 18 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA!berezin
From: berezin@MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA (Alexander Berezin)
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: Reply to Dr. Hilliker
Date: 19 Feb 1997 10:01:31 -0800
Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology
Lines: 93
Sender: daemon@net.bio.net
Distribution: world
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 13:01:04 -0500 (EST)
From: Alexander Berezin
To: Arthur J Hilliker
Cc: "Leon W. Browder" ,
jeremy mcneil <3602jmcn@vm1.ulaval.ca>,
dennis fitzpatrick ,
mary labbe ,
jim fryer ,
dave brown ,
lorna woodrow ,
ken marshall ,
david cook ,
madan joneja ,
mike walsh ,
ted farnworth ,
gil schultz ,
w s lapp , ross hallett ,
ray cummins ,
verna higgins ,
"M. Brock Fenton" ,
louis delbaere ,
bill racz ,
gabriel plaa ,
bruce holub ,
radan capek ,
normand marceau ,
biocan newsgroup
Subject: Re: RESEARCH FUNDING
SOME FIGURES - REPLY to Dr. Hilliker
(please see below).
On Wed, 19 Feb 1997, Arthur J Hilliker wrote:
> Thank you for your memo and attachments which recommends funding all
> excellent NSERC and MRC applications. I cannot support this notion having
> served on both NSERC and MRC grant selection panels, although I have some
> sympathy with it. I especially cannot support it for NSERC.
>
> The problem is that if you fund all worthy projects the amount of funding
> would be so little as to make the grants ineffective. Average NSERC grants
> are less than 40,000 dollars for most panels.
This argument fails to convince me. I have heard it
before. Contrary to what you suggest, there is (almost) no
minimal amount of grant which will be "ineffective". Have
you ever heard anybody RETURNED the grant because it
was "too low" ?
Despite that being presently FUNDED, I know what means
to be totally infunded. For many faculty members I know, the
ONLY research budget they have (or had for some years) is
the annual faculty allownces, which (in my university)
$ 1,100 per year ( $ 3 per day !). And even this people
do NOT consider useless and quite often squeze some
good mileage from it.
In many areas, grants bettween $ 5,000 to $ 10,000 will be
considered as a great help by many presently unfunded
researchers, and grants of $ 20 K as a unbeleivably generous.
Of course, people on small grants should be more
pro-active in search of cooperators (to pool the resources),
but when you have ZERO funding you can't even start this.
No-one will even talk to a beggar.
Sorry, but your thesis of "mininally-useful" research
grant is a clear fallacy.
A lthough I am in general
> agreement with spreading the money around the problem is that we are
> approaching the lower level of funding sufficient to provide useful
> funding, at least in my discipline, molecular biology and genetics. If we
> funded all worthy applicants the average level of funding would be so low
> that the overall productivity of the research community would decline
> rather than increase.
>
> Although I cannot speak on behalf of either NSERC or MRC, the goals of the
> two councils are different. NSERC support long term programs through its
> operating grants, MRC does support programs but the specific project(s)
> outlined in the proposal are more important in determining whether a grant
> if funded. Quite frankly, reducing the MRC average by awarding money to
> all worthy applications would mean that many awards would be grossly
> insufficient to undertake the project proposed.
>
> A.J. Hilliker
>
>
From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Tue Feb 18 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!POST.QUEENSU.CA!bisbym
From: bisbym@POST.QUEENSU.CA ("Mark Bisby")
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: thanks
Date: 19 Feb 1997 08:15:52 -0800
Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology
Lines: 15
Sender: daemon@net.bio.net
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <199702191615.IAA17329@net.bio.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net
I agree with Dr. Farnworth. I met with an M.P. yesterday who made
a point of emphasizing how important has been the role played by Paul
Hough and the National Consortium, on which CFBS is a major player,
in keeping this issue on the government's priority list. Of course,
we cannot rest now the Government has recognised the importance of
research: the granting councils will still be cut 3% this year.
__________________________________________________________
Mark A. Bisby
Department of Physiology
Queen's University
Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Phone: 613-545-2796
FAX: 613-545-6880
e-mail: bisbym@post.queensu.ca
WWW: http://meds-ss10.meds.queensu.ca/medicine/physiol/bisby.htm
From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Tue Feb 18 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!rutgers.rutgers.edu!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!howland.erols.net!cam-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!worldnet.att.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.bc.net!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!gallin2.biology.ualberta.ca!wgallin
From: wgallin@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (Warren Gallin)
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: Re: thanks
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 97 16:42:10 GMT
Organization: University of Alberta
Lines: 40
Distribution: world
Message-ID:
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: gallin2.biology.ualberta.ca
X-Newsreader: VersaTerm Link v1.1.4
In Article , FarnworthEd@EM.AGR.CA (Edward
Farnworth) wrote:
>I think the Canadian Federation of Biological Societies (CFBS) should get
>a big thank-you. It was due to the efforts of the CFBS (Paul Hough,
>Dennis Fitzpatrick and others), that the idea of including money for
>research and development be included as part of the infrastructure
>program. It took a lot of meetings and subtle pressure to get science onto
>the government's agenda and to make it a big enough priority to set aside
>money in the federal budget. Well it happened. It is sometimes easy to
>ask what does an organization like the CFBS do for me. All too often the
>work doesn't get publicized or recognized. So I'm here to give credit
>where credit is due. Well done.
>
>Ted Farnworth
I'll second that. It is a relief to see some demonstration on the part of
government that support of basic science is an important element of
government support for the economy and an important cultural program.
The thing that disappointed me was that there is no increase of support for
the research councils, which are the core of the national science effort.
Although you can't do the work without a lab, conversely you need operating
money. I can't help having this unhappy image of a bunch of scientists in
their shiny new labs doing nothing but writing grant after grant because the
funding cutoffs and levels of support are so bad that they can not actually
get the science done.
I guess the next moves should be a) to lobby for some support for basic
research money to the councils and b) to act as a countervailing force to
the current impetus to force a larger proportion of operating money into
applied programs supported by a particular industry sector.
Go for it, CFBS.
Warren Gallin
Department of Biological Sciences
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E9
Canada
wgallin@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Wed Feb 19 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!ERE.UMontreal.CA!vandeweg
From: vandeweg@ERE.UMontreal.CA ("vandeweg@ere.umontreal.ca")
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: TR: MRC Studentship
Date: 20 Feb 1997 09:18:06 -0800
Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology
Lines: 29
Sender: daemon@net.bio.net
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <01BC1F27.4EFE3740@mednut02.MED.Umontreal.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net
Medical Research Council STUDENTSHIP
$15,295 per annum (five years)
A MRC Studentship Award is available for MSc/PhD students interested to =
work in my laboratory on the following general subject:
"Studies on the liver and leukocyte microsomal glucose-6-phosphatase =
system in health and disease"
The project involves biochemical and molecular biology techniques and =
aims to understand the defect underlying glycogen storage disease type =
1b.
For more information contact:
G=E9rald van de Werve, Dr.Sc.
Professor & Chairman
University of Montreal
Faculty of Medicine
Department of Nutrition
e-mail: vandeweg@ere.umontreal.ca
Phone:(514) 343-7546
FAX: (514) 343-6103
From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Wed Feb 19 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA!berezin
From: berezin@MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA (Alexander Berezin)
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: Re: RESEARCH FUNDING
Date: 20 Feb 1997 04:45:00 -0800
Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology
Lines: 44
Sender: daemon@net.bio.net
Distribution: world
Message-ID:
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net
On Wed, 19 Feb 1997, Colin Rasmussen wrote:
> In article
> ,
> berezin@MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA (Alexander Berezin) wrote:
>
> > SOME FIGURES - REPLY to Dr. Hilliker
> > (please see below).
> >
> > On Wed, 19 Feb 1997, Arthur J Hilliker wrote:
>
> > >
> > > The problem is that if you fund all worthy projects the amount of funding
> > > would be so little as to make the grants ineffective. Average NSERC grants
> > > are less than 40,000 dollars for most panels.
> >
> > This argument fails to convince me. I have heard it
> > before. Contrary to what you suggest, there is (almost) no
> > minimal amount of grant which will be "ineffective". Have
> > you ever heard anybody RETURNED the grant because it
> > was "too low" ?
>
> It only fails to convince you because you have a single-minded agenda. To
> apply your logic as broadly as possible, we should divided the money to
> all the grant applicants (about 1300 in the last MRC competition) which
> would now reduce the average grant to about 1/3 of what it is currently,
> or about $20,000. Gee with that kind of money I could pay a graduate
> student stipend, and even allow them to work for 2 hrs each day. Or, I
> could hire a technician at 2/3 time and watch them do nothing at all
> because there isn't any money leftover for expendables. If one talks
> about NSERC, you're now looking at a $13,000 grant which won't pay a
> technical salary, or a student stipend.
In short, what you are saying is that you can't (apparently
uncapable) to do your research without grad.students and/or
postdocs. I trust you on this. Take my sincere sympaphy.
I suspected it all along.
Back to the bench from proposal writing/reading, Colin.
Perhaps you still can catch up if try hard enough.
Alex Berezin
From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Wed Feb 19 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!swrinde!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!uknet!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!EU.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.bc.net!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!mac15.biochem.ualberta.ca!user
From: crasmussen@anat.med.ualberta.ca (Colin Rasmussen)
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: Re: RESEARCH FUNDING
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 22:40:55 -0700
Organization: University of Alberta
Lines: 38
Distribution: world
Message-ID:
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac15.biochem.ualberta.ca
In article
,
berezin@MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA (Alexander Berezin) wrote:
> SOME FIGURES - REPLY to Dr. Hilliker
> (please see below).
>
> On Wed, 19 Feb 1997, Arthur J Hilliker wrote:
> >
> > The problem is that if you fund all worthy projects the amount of funding
> > would be so little as to make the grants ineffective. Average NSERC grants
> > are less than 40,000 dollars for most panels.
>
> This argument fails to convince me. I have heard it
> before. Contrary to what you suggest, there is (almost) no
> minimal amount of grant which will be "ineffective". Have
> you ever heard anybody RETURNED the grant because it
> was "too low" ?
It only fails to convince you because you have a single-minded agenda. To
apply your logic as broadly as possible, we should divided the money to
all the grant applicants (about 1300 in the last MRC competition) which
would now reduce the average grant to about 1/3 of what it is currently,
or about $20,000. Gee with that kind of money I could pay a graduate
student stipend, and even allow them to work for 2 hrs each day. Or, I
could hire a technician at 2/3 time and watch them do nothing at all
because there isn't any money leftover for expendables. If one talks
about NSERC, you're now looking at a $13,000 grant which won't pay a
technical salary, or a student stipend.
Get real. There is a lower limit of money necessary to maintain the day
to day operation of a research lab. How you can say that there is no
lower limit of funding that is effective shows how little you understand
the modern research environment.
Dr. Colin Rasmussen
University of Alberta
From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Wed Feb 19 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA!berezin
From: berezin@MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA (Alexander Berezin)
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: RESEARCH FUNDING
Date: 20 Feb 1997 08:35:24 -0800
Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology
Lines: 39
Sender: daemon@net.bio.net
Distribution: world
Message-ID:
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net
On Thu, 20 Feb 1997, Colin Rasmussen wrote:
> >
> >In short, what you are saying is that you can't (apparently
> >uncapable) to do your research without grad.students and/or
> >postdocs. I trust you on this. Take my sincere sympaphy.
> >I suspected it all along.
> >Back to the bench from proposal writing/reading, Colin.
> >Perhaps you still can catch up if try hard enough.
(RASMUSSEN):
>
> No, idiot. You said you can do EFFECTIVE research. At the pace
> discoveries are being made, a single individual cannot by his or herself be
> effective. If you can't understand this then you are denser than I
> thought.
>
Reposting Dr. Rasmussen message. (and "Dr" means Doctor
of PHILOSOPHY, mind you, Dr. Rasmussen).
While I was inviting you to strengthen your research
independence by working more on a lab bench, you are
returning comments to me with the above terms. This
is what Doctor, you are using in your polemics on
the scientific issue (research funding is a
scientific issue). If you do peer review I can
only imagine what you likely write there.
So, additionaly to the bench assigments, my suggestion
to you, Dr. Rasmussen, is to take some evening classes
on "how to improve our language skills". Most community
colleges will likely carry such courses. If not, hire
a private tutor from junior school. This way you can
hopefully learn something useful. Best wishes.
Alex Berezin
From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Wed Feb 19 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!cc.umanitoba.ca!gordonr
From: gordonr@cc.umanitoba.ca (Richard Gordon)
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: Re: RESEARCH FUNDING
Date: 20 Feb 1997 05:19:32 -0800
Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology
Lines: 72
Sender: daemon@net.bio.net
Distribution: world
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net
re: Berezin, A.A. & R. Gordon (1997). Better research spending, not more.
The Hamilton Spectator (February 19).
Dear Colin,
Our agenda is not single minded. We are addressing the low overall research
productivity in Canada engendered by a funding distribution system that
creates two classes of researchers: funded and unfunded. We have published
a few alternative solutions, none of which is equivalent to uniform
distribution independent of need or merit. Don Forsdyke (1989) has a quite
workable sliding scale mechanism, which drops unproductive people, and
rewards the productive researchers. I've proposed a baseline scheme, with
competition for the balance (Gordon, 1993). We have also proposed that the
funding of students be direct, not from grants, alleviating your particular
objection. (Of course, then, the student chooses you, and not vice versa.)
I have listed below peer reviewed articles on these matters. In terms of
the politics of the situation, we are saying that scientists need to clean
their house, before asking for more money. We use what we get grossly
inefficiently, in terms of nationwide research productivity, and maximizing
creative output (cf. Gordon, 1996). This problem is systemic, and is not a
criticism of what you do in your own lab. It is a tragedy of the commons
(Hardin, 1968), where each of us tries to get the most out of a limited
resource, namely what Canada is willing to spend on research.
Yours, -Dick Gordon
Forsdyke, D.R. (1989). A systems analyst asks about AIDS research funding.
Lancet 2(December 9), 1382-1384.
Gordon, R. (1993). Grant agencies versus the search for truth.
Accountability in Research: Policies and Quality Assurance 2, 1-5.
Gordon, R. (1996). Viewpoint: rough analysis of funding inequity in the
Faculty of Medicine, University of Manitoba. Prairie Med. J. 66(3), 131-132.
Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science 162, 1243-1248.
>It only fails to convince you because you have a single-minded agenda. To
>apply your logic as broadly as possible, we should divided the money to
>all the grant applicants (about 1300 in the last MRC competition) which
>would now reduce the average grant to about 1/3 of what it is currently,
>or about $20,000. Gee with that kind of money I could pay a graduate
>student stipend, and even allow them to work for 2 hrs each day. Or, I
>could hire a technician at 2/3 time and watch them do nothing at all
>because there isn't any money leftover for expendables. If one talks
>about NSERC, you're now looking at a $13,000 grant which won't pay a
>technical salary, or a student stipend.
>
>Get real. There is a lower limit of money necessary to maintain the day
>to day operation of a research lab. How you can say that there is no
>lower limit of funding that is effective shows how little you understand
>the modern research environment.
>
>Dr. Colin Rasmussen
>University of Alberta
cc:
Mr. Bill Johnston
Hamilton Spectator
Hamilton ON , Canada
Phone: (905) 526-3463
E-mail
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Richard Gordon, Department of Radiology
University of Manitoba, Room ON104, Health Sciences Centre
820 Sherbrook Street, Winnipeg, MB R3A 1R9 Canada
Phone: (204) 789-3828, Fax: (204) 787-2080, Home: (204) 589-0411
E-mail: GordonR@cc.UManitoba.ca
From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Wed Feb 19 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!JULIAN.UWO.CA!drodenhi
From: drodenhi@JULIAN.UWO.CA (David Rodenhiser)
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: re: funding debate?
Date: 20 Feb 1997 14:00:39 -0800
Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology
Lines: 21
Sender: daemon@net.bio.net
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <199702202200.RAA15083@julian.uwo.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net
It's not necessary or the least bit constructive to this important debate
on the future of research funding in Canada to engage in this recent manner
of vitriol and insult to make one's point. Totally inappropriate. Let's
have the exchange of views, keep to the issues and away from the
name-calling.
sincerely,
David I Rodenhiser
..........................................................................
Sincerely,
Dr. David Rodenhiser
Department of Paediatrics,
University of Western Ontario,
London, Ontario, Canada, N6C 2V5
..........................................................................
drodenhi@julian.uwo.ca
From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Wed Feb 19 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!bio.ulaval.ca!Jeremy.McNeil
From: Jeremy.McNeil@bio.ulaval.ca (Jeremy McNeil)
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: mud slinging
Date: 20 Feb 1997 11:28:03 -0800
Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology
Lines: 29
Sender: daemon@net.bio.net
Distribution: world
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net
Gentlemen
Having read the various messages about research funding it is clear
(although not new) that there are very different opinions. This is not
unhealthy and constructive exchanges can serve a purpose, although I have
found not convincing argument that would cause me to change my opinion
about peer review and the granting system. However, when the discussion
reachs the insulting stage it is no longer acceptable. As for lessons,
very few of the messages from the many sources involved in this discussion
have come across without typos, incomplete sentences, etc, (not really
surprising if they are written quickly) so no-one appears to hold the high
ground on this issue.
Bickering like this is unproductive, so if you insist on continuing, please
do it at the individual email level.
Jeremy McNeil
Jeremy N. McNeil
Professeur titulaire
Department of Biology
Laval University
Sainte-Foy, P. Q.
G1K 7P4
Tel: 418-656-2999
Fax: 418-656-2043
From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Wed Feb 19 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!rutgers.rutgers.edu!gatech!csulb.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!arclight.uoregon.edu!newsfeeds.sol.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.bc.net!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!gallin2.biology.ualberta.ca!wgallin
From: wgallin@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca (Warren Gallin)
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: Re: mud slinging
Date: Thu, 20 Feb 97 23:09:44 GMT
Organization: University of Alberta
Lines: 53
Distribution: world
Message-ID:
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: gallin2.biology.ualberta.ca
X-Newsreader: VersaTerm Link v1.1.4
In Article ,
berezin@MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA (Alexander Berezin) wrote:
>It was never my intention to aggravate the discussion
>to the personal remarks and if something of that kind
>came along from my side, I am ready to bring my
>appologies. I am leaving it to others, if they wish
>to do the same.
Alex,
Two paragraphs below, you start again.
>But apologies or not - the problems outlined, let
>briefly, in our Spectator article remain unsolved.
>
>The grant distribution system in which those who
>decide the grant awards (the committee memebers) are
>getting there own funding from the same pool is not
>only unfair in general terms (conflict of interest),
You really need to find out how things are done. Your description of how
the committees operate is not congruent with anything I've ever seen.
>but likely illegal, perhaps even at the borderline of
>being criminal.
So you are saying thta people who are serving on the committees are acting
in a criminal manner? Thanks for not being insulting or calling names.
>This must be stoped. And many memebers
>of general public are outraged by this fact.
>Some people I talked to about this, actually almost
>refused to believe it as for them this is a clear
>abnormality. But we (scientific community) all know
>that this is very much true and do nothing about such
>blatant transgression of norms of ethics, to say the
>least.
You keep saying this. So anyone who participates in peer review of grants
is unethical? Don't you see how insulting this is?
I really object to this kind of personal, negative attack. I won't get into
a name calling game with you. I just wish that you would not be so
insulting about people who a) are funded or b) do the work of peer review.
It sure makes it hard for me to work through your posts and sort out the
points you are trying to make from the constant ad hominem allusions.
Warren Gallin
Department of Biological Sciences
University of Alberta
Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E9
Canada
wgallin@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Wed Feb 19 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!UAlberta.CA!David.Cook
From: David.Cook@UAlberta.CA (David Cook)
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: (none)
Date: 20 Feb 1997 14:40:06 -0800
Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology
Lines: 2
Sender: daemon@net.bio.net
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <199702202239.PAA31654@quartz.ucs.ualberta.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net
unsubscribe
From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Wed Feb 19 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA!berezin
From: berezin@MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA (Alexander Berezin)
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: Re: mud slinging
Date: 20 Feb 1997 14:14:32 -0800
Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology
Lines: 77
Sender: daemon@net.bio.net
Distribution: world
Message-ID:
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net
On 20 Feb 1997, Jeremy McNeil wrote:
> Gentlemen
>
> Having read the various messages about research funding it is clear
> (although not new) that there are very different opinions. This is not
> unhealthy and constructive exchanges can serve a purpose, although I have
> found not convincing argument that would cause me to change my opinion
> about peer review and the granting system. However, when the discussion
> reachs the insulting stage it is no longer acceptable. As for lessons,
> very few of the messages from the many sources involved in this discussion
> have come across without typos, incomplete sentences, etc, (not really
> surprising if they are written quickly) so no-one appears to hold the high
> ground on this issue.
>
> Bickering like this is unproductive, so if you insist on continuing, please
> do it at the individual email level.
>
> Jeremy McNeil
>
> Jeremy N. McNeil
> Professeur titulaire
> Department of Biology
> Laval University
> Sainte-Foy, P. Q.
> G1K 7P4
>
> Tel: 418-656-2999
> Fax: 418-656-2043
Dear Profssor McNail (and other interested),
It was never my intention to aggravate the discussion
to the personal remarks and if something of that kind
came along from my side, I am ready to bring my
appologies. I am leaving it to others, if they wish
to do the same.
But apologies or not - the problems outlined, let
briefly, in our Spectator article remain unsolved.
The grant distribution system in which those who
decide the grant awards (the committee memebers) are
getting there own funding from the same pool is not
only unfair in general terms (conflict of interest),
but likely illegal, perhaps even at the borderline of
being criminal. This must be stoped. And many memebers
of general public are outraged by this fact.
Some people I talked to about this, actually almost
refused to believe it as for them this is a clear
abnormality. But we (scientific community) all know
that this is very much true and do nothing about such
blatant transgression of norms of ethics, to say the
least.
People may think whatever they like about peer review
(views are obviously differ), but until a clear arms
length principle for committee membership is implemented
(or regretfully, it may be needed to enforce it),
nothing good can be expected from this system for the
Canadain science, not matter how many more agencies
Martins and Manleys can invent.
My suggestion therefore are:
(1) All members of NSERC/MRC grant selection committees
who presently hold grants from these agencies should
resign. There is enough expertize in this country to
form committees from the qualified non-grantees.
(2) Alternatively, they may choose to remain members
of funding panel, but they must surrender their grants
from the said agencies.
Alex Berezin
From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Thu Feb 20 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!PHYSIOLOGY.UWO.CA!dpomer
From: dpomer@PHYSIOLOGY.UWO.CA ("Dr. Dave Pomerantz")
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: Mud
Date: 20 Feb 1997 17:23:37 -0800
Organization: Univ. of Western Ontario, Canada
Lines: 17
Sender: daemon@net.bio.net
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <7808395407F@physiology.uwo.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net
To my colleagues who are becoming exasperated with insults on the
biocan network:
Most of the insults come from few sources, so does much of the
commercial intrusion. Your e-mail programs allow filtering of
unappreciated missives. Challenging exchange of differing viewpoints
is retained, calls to reasoned are action circulated, absurdities,
mudslinging and get rich quick schemes are banished to the
ether. Intersting how that works!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
David Pomerantz
Dept. of Physiology
Univ. Western Ontario
London, Ont. N6A 5C1
tel. 519-661-3473
Fax 661-3827
From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Thu Feb 20 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!ccs.carleton.ca!wgwillmo
From: wgwillmo@ccs.carleton.ca (william g. willmore)
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: unsubscribe
Date: 21 Feb 1997 05:52:54 -0800
Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology
Lines: 1
Sender: daemon@net.bio.net
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <199702211353.NAA04268@rideau>
NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net
unsubscribe
From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Thu Feb 20 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!rutgers.rutgers.edu!uwm.edu!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!newsxfer3.itd.umich.edu!portc01.blue.aol.com!spamz.news.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: janczek@aol.com (JanCzek)
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: Very Special Lab-Animal Ventilator
Date: 21 Feb 1997 06:10:09 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Lines: 22
Message-ID: <19970221061000.BAA29302@ladder02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder02.news.aol.com
X-Admin: news@aol.com
Very Special Animal Ventilator
New ventilator from Columbus Instruments allows control over each moment
of respiratory cycle.
It is powered by stepping motor and controlled by microprocessor. Phase
or ratio of Inspiratory Time to Expiratory Time is adjusted in very wide
range 1:16. Pressure control protects animal lungs and provides PEEP (
Peek End Expiratory Pressure) control. Ventilator operates on piston in
cylinder principle which does not require lubrication ( graphite piston in
glass cylinder). Range of tidal volumes is 0.05 ml to 100 ml. with
frequency adjusted in the range 5 to 200 strokes per min. All parameters
can be controlled by remote computer.
If you like more information please e-mail your street address and I will
send you catalog.
You may also see its short description on Columbus Instruments www page
at:
WWW.COLINST.COM in the physiology section.
Jan Czekajewski, Ph.D.
Columbus Instruments
Columbus, Ohio, USA
janczek@aol.com
From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Thu Feb 20 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA!berezin
From: berezin@MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA (Alexander Berezin)
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: Mud slinging: to Warren Gallin
Date: 20 Feb 1997 18:05:26 -0800
Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology
Lines: 128
Sender: daemon@net.bio.net
Distribution: world
Message-ID:
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net
On Thu, 20 Feb 1997, Warren Gallin wrote:
(prev. snipped)
> >The grant distribution system in which those who
> >decide the grant awards (the committee memebers) are
> >getting there own funding from the same pool is not
> >only unfair in general terms (conflict of interest),
BEREZIN:
What do yon want me to find out, Warren ?
I know FOR SURE:
(1) Many of the productive, original and publicationally-active
researchers (who are regularly publishing PEER REVIED papers,
mind you) are NOT funded AT ALL (NIL garnts) by the system
you are trying to defend. I know personally many such
people, so it's not a matter of guessing for me, but a fact.
(2) AVERAGE grant of GSC members is 2 to 3 higher than the
overall average. This was compiled a year or two ago on
the basis of info provided by NSERC itself (I have a copy).
Anyine can do it now - result will be the same.
I don't know "for sure", but appreciate if anyone
give me a SINGLE example when the GCS member was denied
his/her own grant.
> >but likely illegal, perhaps even at the borderline of
> >being criminal.
>
> So you are saying thta people who are serving on the committees are acting
> in a criminal manner? Thanks for not being insulting or calling names.
BEREZIN:
I say the following: That should it be a proper judical
inquiry on the matter (by the Solicitor General office,
for example) I see it as quite likely that such practice
will be found illegal (or whatever equivalent term
lawyers can find here, and the ruling that GSC members
can't be grantees will be imposed). This does not mean
the charges will be brought against specific people
(although, one can't rule out this possibility either,
in case abuse can be demonstrated - and likely some
cases will pop up, should the books of the secretive
peer reviewing be opened - and sooner or later they
will).
I am not a lawyer, neither do I have resources to
pursue this, so I am leaving this matter on this, but
maintain that the inquiry with the Solicitor General
office on this matter is long overdue.
> >This must be stoped. And many memebers
> >of general public are outraged by this fact.
> >Some people I talked to about this, actually almost
> >refused to believe it as for them this is a clear
> >abnormality. But we (scientific community) all know
> >that this is very much true and do nothing about such
> >blatant transgression of norms of ethics, to say the
> >least.
>
> You keep saying this. So anyone who participates in peer review of grants
> is unethical? Don't you see how insulting this is?
BEREZIN:
Yes, it is unethical if they have conflict of interest,
i.e. peer reviewer and the applicant have grants form the
same panel. And don't catch me on this: it is NOT unethical
(I mean it is OK) to review PAPERS for the journal when your
own paper is submitted there too. The purpose here is quite
different than for grants. Grants are zero sum game while
for papers the size of issues and the number of papers per
issue is usually quite flexible.
>
> I really object to this kind of personal, negative attack.
BEREZIN:
Again, you accuse me of PERSONAL attack, which I am not
doing. I did not give a single name in this regard. The
same way it can be said that Stalin's KPSS was a criminal
organization (true) but this does not follow that all
who belonged to the party were criminals (although some
certainly were).
> I just wish that you would not be so
> insulting about people who a) are funded or b) do the work of peer review.
BEREZIN:
(1) Your implication that I am insulting to the people
who are funded is a sheer figment of your imagimation.
I never said this. And mind you, I am funded myself.
(2) About peer review likewise, I pointed out the
above limitations, I never said that at arms length
peer review is unethical (but getting funding from the
same panel for me is a violation of arms length
principle).
> It sure makes it hard for me to work through your posts and sort out the
> points you are trying to make from the constant ad hominem allusions.
BEREZIN:
In fact, if you stop insisting that massive NIL awards be
given instead of using sliding scale (Forsdyke scheme),
of Base Maintenance Grants (Hunter and, independently,
Gordon) we may start getting closer to the solution.
That's what I want to see. But we have to face up to
the difficult problems with solutions which certainly
can't be pleasing to everyone.
> Warren Gallin
> Department of Biological Sciences
> University of Alberta
> Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2E9
> Canada
> wgallin@gpu.srv.ualberta.ca
>
>
From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Thu Feb 20 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!FHS.CSU.MCMASTER.CA!daniele
From: daniele@FHS.CSU.MCMASTER.CA (Edwin Daniel)
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: Re: mud slinging
Date: 21 Feb 1997 13:34:31 -0800
Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology
Lines: 55
Sender: daemon@net.bio.net
Distribution: world
Message-ID:
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net
I AGREE COMPLETELY WITH YOUR COMMENTS. No one has sufficient knowledge of
the various need of diverse research fields to claim to know what low level
of financial support results in closure of important research avenues. No
one knows enough to claim that individuals working at the research bench
are the true motor for research. No one should support the continuation
of reduction in funding for basic research on the grounds that any amount
is enough if divided "fairly"; presumably zero funding divided by a large
coterie of applicants would be fine on this logic. On the other hand no
one should ignore that there is some "cronyism", some "conflict of
interest" and some incompetence in the current anonymous peer review
system with outcomes made more disastrous by the low percentage of
successful applications. No one can present evidence that there is a
significant difference in the quality of MRC applications graded 3.8 and
not funded from those graded 4.2 and funded. For that matter advocates of
the "funding of all excellent research" have not got any true measure of
"excellence" and their postion seems to have gradually changed from "fund
all academic scientists" to a new and subjective cutoff for funding.
Personally I think that a lot of the faults of the peer review system
could be partially remedied by making all reviewing open eliminating
anonymity. Anyway, Please shut up and try to help the Canadian public
understand the importance of basic, idea-driven research in all fields.
Yours for useful usage of the email system. E. E. Daniel
On 20 Feb 1997, Jeremy McNeil wrote:
> Gentlemen
>
> Having read the various messages about research funding it is clear
> (although not new) that there are very different opinions. This is not
> unhealthy and constructive exchanges can serve a purpose, although I have
> found not convincing argument that would cause me to change my opinion
> about peer review and the granting system. However, when the discussion
> reachs the insulting stage it is no longer acceptable. As for lessons,
> very few of the messages from the many sources involved in this discussion
> have come across without typos, incomplete sentences, etc, (not really
> surprising if they are written quickly) so no-one appears to hold the high
> ground on this issue.
>
> Bickering like this is unproductive, so if you insist on continuing, please
> do it at the individual email level.
>
> Jeremy McNeil
>
> Jeremy N. McNeil
> Professeur titulaire
> Department of Biology
> Laval University
> Sainte-Foy, P. Q.
> G1K 7P4
>
> Tel: 418-656-2999
> Fax: 418-656-2043
>
>
>
>
From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Sun Feb 23 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA!berezin
From: berezin@MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA (Alexander Berezin)
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: Re: Presumed misbehaviour by GSC members.
Date: 24 Feb 1997 10:16:36 -0800
Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology
Lines: 71
Sender: daemon@net.bio.net
Distribution: world
Message-ID:
References: <1.5.4.32.19970224170101.006a5be8@biology.queensu.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net
On 24 Feb 1997, Dr. G. P. Morris wrote:
> In response to Dr. Berezin's challenge to identify a single example of a GSC
> member losing their grant: I lost an MRC grant (some time around 1980),
> based on the assessment of a GSC on which I was serving. I do not doubt
> that there are many other examples.
>
> That said, I agree that the MRC policy, in particular, of funding few
> applicants is a self-destructive one. This policy can still be the subject
> of rational debate, and not of repetitious invective which tends to
> desensitize all involved.
>
> Our colleagues who serve on GSCs deserve gratitude for the effort that they
> put into this task. They do not set the policies. I did observe one clearly
> criminal (not simply unethical) act by a GSC member. This was, and is, very
> much the exception. There might be some value to GSCs being comprised of
> members who are not funded by a particular agency. We do, however, have a
> relatively limited pool of expertise in our scientific community and it is
> questionable whether removing the most qualified members would lead to a
> better system.
>
> Gerry Morris
> Biology, Queen's University.
>
Dear Professor Morris,
Thank you for your comments. There would be very few (if any)
objections of GSC members be grantees themselves, PROVIDED the
entire system worked as it MUST, that is to provide some
funding to all QUALIFIED applicants, whose applictions
have overall sufficiently positive peer review assessment.
But we all know that this is magnificently NOT the case, that
many deserving researchers are NIL-funded, and you as a (former)
member of GSC seem to disagree yourself with MRC's (and likely
NSERC's) policy labling is as a "self-destructive". And you
are NOT the only one GSC member who expressed such feelings.
In fact. I got a (private) response from another GSC member
who expressis in trust his dismay of the enormous pressure
Council's administation put on GSC to be "even more selective".
You than go on saying that ... (GSC members)... do not
set the policies...
THIS IS THE KEY TO THE PROBLEM.
If you, distinguished member of the Canadain Research
Community, do not set policies, than WHO DOES ?
Yoy say that this policy sould be "subjected to
rational debate", but where are the efforts to start
such a debate ? I just got a letter from NSERC official
REJECTING my proposal that NSERC Contact bulletin
allocate some few pages for open discussion of matters
with the research community. They DON'T want the debate
and will do everything to suppress it, should it
unfold. You know this as well as I do.
Sincerely - Alex Berezin
*********************************
Alexander A. Berezin, PhD
Department of Engineering Physics
McMaster University, Hamilton,
Ontario, Canada, L8S 4L7
tel. (905) 525-9140 ext. 24546
e-mail: BEREZIN@MCMASTER.CA
**********************************
From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Sun Feb 23 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!BIOLOGY.QUEENSU.CA!morrisg
From: morrisg@BIOLOGY.QUEENSU.CA ("Dr. G. P. Morris")
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: Presumed misbehaviour by GSC members.
Date: 24 Feb 1997 09:09:55 -0800
Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology
Lines: 23
Sender: daemon@net.bio.net
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <1.5.4.32.19970224170101.006a5be8@biology.queensu.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net
In response to Dr. Berezin's challenge to identify a single example of a GSC
member losing their grant: I lost an MRC grant (some time around 1980),
based on the assessment of a GSC on which I was serving. I do not doubt
that there are many other examples.
That said, I agree that the MRC policy, in particular, of funding few
applicants is a self-destructive one. This policy can still be the subject
of rational debate, and not of repetitious invective which tends to
desensitize all involved.
Our colleagues who serve on GSCs deserve gratitude for the effort that they
put into this task. They do not set the policies. I did observe one clearly
criminal (not simply unethical) act by a GSC member. This was, and is, very
much the exception. There might be some value to GSCs being comprised of
members who are not funded by a particular agency. We do, however, have a
relatively limited pool of expertise in our scientific community and it is
questionable whether removing the most qualified members would lead to a
better system.
Gerry Morris
Biology, Queen's University.
From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Sun Feb 23 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!sfu.ca!finegood
From: finegood@sfu.ca (Diane Finegood)
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: Re: Two tenure-track positions searched at Simon Fraser
University
Date: 24 Feb 1997 11:16:52 -0800
Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology
Lines: 136
Sender: daemon@net.bio.net
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <199702241917.LAA19699@ferrari.sfu.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net
>>>Please assist in distributing to all potential candidates the following
>>>recently revised ads for two open tenure-track positions at the School of
>>>Kinesiology.
>>>
>>>Please note that at this time the environmental physiologist search is
>>>directed to Canadian citizens and Permanent Residents of Canada. The
>>>re-opened health scientist search will give priority to qualified
>>>applicants who are Canadian or permanent residents of Canada, but
>>>applications by non-Canadians will also be accepted. Thank you.
>>>
>>>
>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>> * * * Assistant Professor -- Environmental Physiology
* * *
>>>
>>>The School of Kinesiology at Simon Fraser University seeks an outstanding
>>>junior scientist to fill a tenure-track position at the level of=
Assistant
>>>Professor. Candidates should have a developed research interest in one of
>>>these areas: altitude, aerospace, diving, hyperbaric therapy or thermal
>>>regulation, for which unique research facilities exist at SFU. The
>>>Environmental Physiology Unit includes an altitude and diving chamber
>>>complex, a life support and environmental control system, a climatic
>>>chamber and hot and cold water immersion tanks, and is equipped for
>>>physiological measurements from human subjects (see detailed description=
in
>>>http://fas.sfu.ca/kin/research/epu.html). A successful candidate for=
this
>>>position will be expected to establish an independent, externally funded
>>>research program and teach undergraduate and graduate courses in his/her
>>>area of specialization. Priority will be given to candidates who can also
>>>teach courses in general physiology at the undergraduate level. =
Biomedical
>>>engineers, physicians or ergonomists with relevant expertise are=
encouraged
>>>to apply.
>>>
>>>Simon Fraser University, located on top of Burnaby Mountain in Greater
>>>Vancouver, is renowned for the high quality of its programs. Tenure-track
>>>appointments are for an initial probationary period of five years and
>>>include an excellent benefits package, a mortgage assistance package and=
a
>>>generous moving allowance.
>>>
>>>The School of Kinesiology has the mission to study human structure and
>>>function and their relation to health and movement. Its 20 faculty=
members
>>>and 5 laboratory instructors cover a wide range of disciplines and teach
>>>approximately 500 students enrolled in the B.Sc. program in Kinesiology=
and
>>>50 graduate students enrolled in M.Sc. or Ph.D. programs.
>>>
>>>The intended start date is September 1, 1997. Priority will be given to
>>>applications received before 15 March 1997, but additional applicants may
>>>be considered until the position is filled. To apply, please submit your
>>>curriculum vit=E6, three publications that you consider most important, a
>>>cover letter outlining your anticipated research directions and your
>>>philosophy and commitment to teaching, along with the name, address and
>>>telephone of three references, to:
>>>
>>>J.A. Hoffer, Ph.D., Director, School of Kinesiology, Faculty of Applied
>>>Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia V5A 1S6,
>>>Canada.
>>>
>>>Simon Fraser University is committed to the principle of equity in
>>>employment and offers equal employment opportunities to qualified
>>>applicants. In accordance with Canadian Immigration requirements, this
>>>advertisement is directed to Canadian citizens and Permanent Residents of
>>>Canada. All appointments are subject to budgetary authorization.
>>>
>>>
>>>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>>
>>>
>>>ASSISTANT PROFESSOR - HEALTH SCIENTIST
>>> * * * Search Reopened * * *
>>>
>>>The School of Kinesiology at Simon Fraser University seeks an oustanding
>>>junior scientist to fill a tenure-track position at the level of=
Assistant
>>>Professor. The successful candidate will be expected to establish an
>>>independent, externally funded research program and teach undergraduate=
and
>>>graduate courses in his/her area of specialization. Areas of research
>>>focus and teaching expertise are: prevention and/or rehabilitation of
>>>disorders of major societal concern, such as cardiovascular disease,
>>>stroke, degenerative disorders of the nervous system, diabetes or
>>>musculoskeletal disorders.
>>>
>>>Simon Fraser University, located on top of Burnaby Mountain in Greater
>>>Vancouver, is renowned for the high quality of its programs. Tenure-track
>>>appointments are for an initial probationary period of five years and
>>>include an excellent benefits package, a mortgage assistance package and=
a
>>>generous moving allowance.
>>>
>>>The School of Kinesiology has the mission to study human structure and
>>>function and their relation to health and movement. Its 20 faculty=
members
>>>and 5 laboratory instructors cover a wide range of disciplines and teach
>>>approximately 500 students enrolled in the B.Sc. program in Kinesiology=
and
>>>50 graduate students enrolled in M.Sc. or Ph.D. programs.
>>>
>>>The intended start date is September 1, 1997. Priority will be given to
>>>applications received by 1 April 1997, but additional applicants may be
>>>considered until the position is filled. To apply, please submit your
>>>curriculum vit=E6, three publications that you consider most important, a
>>>cover letter outlining your anticipated research directions and your
>>>philosophy and commitment to teaching, along with the name, address and
>>>telephone of three references, to:
>>>
>>>J.A. Hoffer, Ph.D., Director, School of Kinesiology, Faculty of Applied
>>>Sciences, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, V5A 1S6,
>>>Canada.
>>>
>>>Simon Fraser University is committed to the principle of equity in
>>>employment and offers equal employment opportunities to qualified
>>>applicants. In accordance with Canadian Immigration requirements,=
priority
>>>will be given to Canadian citizens and permanent residents of Canada. =
All
>>>appointments are subject to budgetary authorization.
Diane T. Finegood, PhD
Associate Professor
School of Kinesiology
Simon Fraser University
Kinesiology, Room K9625
Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6
Phone: 604-291-3319
FAX: 604-291-3040
E-mail: finegood@sfu.ca
From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Sun Feb 23 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA!berezin
From: berezin@MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA (Alexander Berezin)
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: Another Question to Dr. Morris
Date: 24 Feb 1997 11:03:42 -0800
Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology
Lines: 55
Sender: daemon@net.bio.net
Distribution: world
Message-ID:
References: <1.5.4.32.19970224170101.006a5be8@biology.queensu.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net
On 24 Feb 1997, Dr. G. P. Morris wrote:
> I did observe one clearly
> criminal (not simply unethical) act by a GSC member.
> This was, and is, very
> much the exception.
Dear Dr. Morris (and others),
To my previous reply to you I want to add the
comment to the above statement.
You say that you observed a seriuos act of
misbehavior of your fellow GSC member. Of
course, no-one will doubt you on this.
BUT THEN (sic - !) you say "This was, and
is, very much the exception".
Despite that it is a natural instant reaction
of any honest person (to disbelive than many
others may be disohnest), in this particular
connotation I ought to question the logic
grounds of such inference.
According to Bayesean inference, if I see one
white swan I with THE MOST LIKELIHOOD have
to conclude that most sawns are white.
You have being serving (I presume) on only one
committee and for a limited period of time (again,
I presume) and you came accross the dishonesty
(you even say CRIMINALTY) case.
The logical inference from this is to suggest
that this effect is TYPICAL rather than exceptional,
and we are back to the square one with the orginal
hypothesis.
So, let me suggest that we have equally valid
working hypothesis that is:
"MOST Selection Committees have dishonest
members most of the time"
And this hypothesis fits equally well your
own experimental data.
(but anyway, I sincerely thank you for the
input).
Alex Berezin
From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Sun Feb 23 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!rutgers.rutgers.edu!gatech!arclight.uoregon.edu!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!newsxfer3.itd.umich.edu!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!uunet!in2.uu.net!152.163.170.17!newstf01.news.aol.com!audrey01.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: janczek@aol.com (JanCzek)
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: Measuring basal metabolism of genetically obese mice
Date: 24 Feb 1997 15:33:28 GMT
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Lines: 18
Message-ID: <19970224153300.KAA27352@ladder02.news.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: ladder02.news.aol.com
X-Admin: news@aol.com
Measuring basal metabolism of obese mice/rats
We at Columbus Instruments developed very precise system ( open flow
indirect calorimeter- "Oxymax") which measures VO2/VCO2 of genetically
defective animals either is home cages or during exercise. We utilize
differential measurement of % O2 and %CO2 between input and output of
animal chambers with very high resolution gas analyzers (0.001%).
Optional simultaneous measurements of animal activity and food intake is
also possible. This system already helps researchers in major
pharmaceutical companies from Amgen, through Merck to Sandoz and Zeneca.
If you like to receive more information with detailed system description
and application papers, let me know by providing street address to :
Jan Czekajewski, Ph.D.
Columbus Instruments
Columbus, Ohio, USA
janczek@aol.com
ph(614)276-0861
From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Tue Feb 25 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!bcm.tmc.edu!cs.utexas.edu!howland.erols.net!worldnet.att.net!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!cpk-news-feed1.bbnplanet.com!nih.gov!hunterppp73.nih.gov!user
From: logan@speck.niddk.nih.gov (Logan Donaldson)
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: CFBS Meeting Info
Followup-To: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Date: 26 Feb 1997 04:25:29 GMT
Organization: LCP / NIDDK / Natl Institutes of Health
Lines: 10
Distribution: world
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Host: hunterppp73.nih.gov
Hi. If it's not too late, I would like to attend the CFBS meeting this
summer. I really appreciate it if someone could tell me where/how I could
get an application.
thanks,
-Logan Donaldson
Laboratory of Chemical Physics, NIDDK
National Institutes of Health
logan@speck.niddk.nih.gov
From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Wed Feb 26 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!rutgers.rutgers.edu!gatech!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!news.enteract.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news.pbi.net!decwrl!tribune.usask.ca!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!mac09.biochem.ualberta.ca!user
From: crasmussen@anat.med.ualberta.ca (Colin Rasmussen)
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: Re: Mud slinging: to Warren Gallin
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 10:46:09 -0700
Organization: University of Alberta
Lines: 54
Distribution: world
Message-ID:
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac09.biochem.ualberta.ca
In article
,
berezin@MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA (Alexander Berezin) wrote:
>
> I don't know "for sure", but appreciate if anyone
> give me a SINGLE example when the GCS member was denied
> his/her own grant.
I have personally seen this happen, so to say that panel members guarantee
their own funding is simply not accurate.
> BEREZIN:
>
> I say the following: That should it be a proper judical
> inquiry on the matter (by the Solicitor General office,
> for example) I see it as quite likely that such practice
> will be found illegal (or whatever equivalent term
> lawyers can find here, and the ruling that GSC members
> can't be grantees will be imposed). This does not mean
> the charges will be brought against specific people
> (although, one can't rule out this possibility either,
> in case abuse can be demonstrated - and likely some
> cases will pop up, should the books of the secretive
> peer reviewing be opened - and sooner or later they
> will).
So we can spend millions more dollars that could have been better used to
increase research funding. MRC is moving to a system where panel members
who have grant application pending in the panel they serve do not attend
meeting of that panel to reduce the potential for influence and conflict
of interest.
> BEREZIN:
>
> Yes, it is unethical if they have conflict of interest,
> i.e. peer reviewer and the applicant have grants form the
> same panel. And don't catch me on this: it is NOT unethical
> (I mean it is OK) to review PAPERS for the journal when your
> own paper is submitted there too. The purpose here is quite
> different than for grants. Grants are zero sum game while
> for papers the size of issues and the number of papers per
> issue is usually quite flexible.
Now how is that different. There is still the potential for conflict of
interest when you review the work of others, and other members of the
Editorial board may in effect "go easy on you" to curry the same favor
when something of theirs comes in for review. Since publishing is an
important consideration in whether a researcher gets funded, you cannot
say that this is not the same conflict in morals.
Colin Rasmussen
From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Wed Feb 26 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA!berezin
From: berezin@MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA (Alexander Berezin)
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: Mud...: GSC Membership & Peer Review
Date: 27 Feb 1997 12:24:10 -0800
Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology
Lines: 68
Sender: daemon@net.bio.net
Distribution: world
Message-ID:
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net
On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, Colin Rasmussen wrote:
I am pleased to observe that we may be indeed approaching
a stage of a real discussion instead of barking. Here are
a few more comment to what Colin is saying.
< snip >
> MRC is moving to a system where panel members
> who have grant application pending in the panel they serve do not attend
> meeting of that panel to reduce the potential for influence and conflict
> of interest.
My prime question here (which so far nobody was able
to answer to me, and I posed it to several GSC members)
is this:
"Why grant recepients/applicant should be members
of NSERC/MRC GSC pannels at first place ?"
There is a clear evidence that there is enough expertize
in this country to assemble ALL granting panel exclussively
from competent people who are NOT themselves grantees. In
order to 'maintain links/feedback with a user sector" N
SERC/MRC grantees can still be included as members-at
-large (perhaps through voting among elegible electorate),
but NOT on GSC paneles handling individual grant applications.
This may still not fully remove all potential conflict of
interests (general members may still get preferential
treatment), but it certainly will increase "arms-length"
to a safer limit and reduce the conflict of interest by
at least one order of magnitude.
( on difference of peer review for papers and grants)
> Now how is that different. There is still the potential for conflict of
> interest when you review the work of others, and other members of the
> Editorial board may in effect "go easy on you" to curry the same favor
> when something of theirs comes in for review. Since publishing is an
> important consideration in whether a researcher gets funded, you cannot
> say that this is not the same conflict in morals.
Nobody says that peer review for journals is overall a
clean business and free of abuses, conflict of interest,
etc. Of course, not. Recent $ 20 M (US) settlement in
Immones-Cistron (sp ?) case about reviewing paper for
"Nature" (details were in Nature a couple of weeks
ago) is likely only a tiny tip of an iceberg. Not all
have $ 20,000,000 ready to buy themselves out from the
peer review misconduct allegations.
And yet, situation here is PRINICIPALLY different.
For grants from NSERC (and to a lesser degree MRC) it
is almost always yes/no situation. For papers (and we
all know this) if it fell through is one journal, you
usually go to a next one (sometime 'less pretigiuos'.
but that's relatively minor aspect) and sooner or later
it is normally gets published (unless it is a crap
indeed).
Alex Berezin
>
> Colin Rasmussen
>
>
From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Thu Feb 27 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!rutgers.rutgers.edu!news.sgi.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news.bc.net!rover.ucs.ualberta.ca!mac09.biochem.ualberta.ca!user
From: crasmussen@anat.med.ualberta.ca (Colin Rasmussen)
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: Re: Mud...: GSC Membership & Peer Review
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1997 17:25:41 -0700
Organization: University of Alberta
Lines: 60
Distribution: world
Message-ID:
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: mac09.biochem.ualberta.ca
In article
,
berezin@MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA (Alexander Berezin) wrote:
>
> My prime question here (which so far nobody was able
> to answer to me, and I posed it to several GSC members)
> is this:
>
> "Why grant recepients/applicant should be members
> of NSERC/MRC GSC pannels at first place ?"
Maybe because it's possible that active scientists are likely the best
people to judge the merits of a research application. After all, they
should be staying current on the ideas and technology within their realm
of expertise, and if they are active likely have a pretty good
understanding of what is possible, and whether or not an applicant appears
to know what they are talking about.
>
> There is a clear evidence that there is enough expertize
> in this country to assemble ALL granting panel exclussively
> from competent people who are NOT themselves grantees. In
Although I would contend that people who are not grantees are maybe not
the best to judge the merits of proposals. Is their expertise really that
good if their own ideas are deemed unfundable?
>
> Nobody says that peer review for journals is overall a
> clean business and free of abuses, conflict of interest,
> etc. Of course, not. Recent $ 20 M (US) settlement in
> Immones-Cistron (sp ?) case about reviewing paper for
> "Nature" (details were in Nature a couple of weeks
> ago) is likely only a tiny tip of an iceberg. Not all
> have $ 20,000,000 ready to buy themselves out from the
> peer review misconduct allegations.
But you previously said in response to Warren Gallin that the conflict of
interest in reviewing grants is somehow different to that which would
occur when reviewing papers. Now you backtrack your argument. You can't
have it both ways.
>
> And yet, situation here is PRINICIPALLY different.
> For grants from NSERC (and to a lesser degree MRC) it
> is almost always yes/no situation. For papers (and we
> all know this) if it fell through is one journal, you
> usually go to a next one (sometime 'less pretigiuos'.
> but that's relatively minor aspect) and sooner or later
> it is normally gets published (unless it is a crap
> indeed).
At each journal it is a yes/no decision. When it's no, one can either
improve the science or go to a lesser journal. The strategy you describe
above is no different that the applicant resubmitting a revised proposal
until it either gets funded or the applicant gives up, except that a lot
of crap gets published usually by the method you describe above, whereas I
would contend that at least the standards remain the same when judging
grant applications.
Colin Rasmussen
From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Thu Feb 27 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA!berezin
From: berezin@MCMAIL.CIS.MCMASTER.CA (Alexander Berezin)
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: NSERC/MRC Grants
Date: 27 Feb 1997 18:07:21 -0800
Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology
Lines: 72
Sender: daemon@net.bio.net
Distribution: world
Message-ID:
References:
NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net
On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, Colin Rasmussen wrote:
> Although I would contend that people who are not grantees are maybe not
> the best to judge the merits of proposals. Is their expertise really that
> good if their own ideas are deemed unfundable?
>
You got me wrong. I am not proposing that GSC recruiting
should draw from the pool of NIL-awardees. There afre many
qualified people who are not applying for grants, like
people who recently retired. There are VERY many of them,
they often maintain a very keen interset, and genrally
likely less biased becuase they have no longer vested
interest in funding system.
< snip >
>
> At each journal it is a yes/no decision. When it's no, one can either
> improve the science or go to a lesser journal. The strategy you describe
> above is no different that the applicant resubmitting a revised proposal
> until it either gets funded or the applicant gives up
No, it is significantly different. When you have you paper
rejected and decide resubmit it to "lesser" (?) journal (highly
questionable notion in itself), you can do it concurently
with all other activities. It does not hold you back. Most of us
have several papers at any given time at various stages of
processing. I used to get one paper rejected and another one
accepted in the same day. Reject of a paper is usually a
relatievly minor upset, and ceratinly in no comparison with
the loss of the operating grant.
In NSERC system if you lost your grant today, you can't get
it next month by 'improving' on your proposals (with papers,
you actually CAN do this quite often). You have to wait another
full year. This is another stupid feature of the system.
It's like a strange church which performs marriages only
once a year.
And another funny thing just occured to me upon the
reflection on what you said in the previous poster.
You say that you observed that member of GCS was
denied grant. (Dr. Morris earlier said the same).
OK, let's take it at face value.
It is obvious that the researcher who is denied
grant (NIL award) is seen as a useless researcher
by NSERC/MRC, uncreative, unworthy and incompetent.
Then how he got to the GSC with all these qualities ?
So, you just presented us another proof (your
direct testimony) of how lousy the present NSERC/MRC
system really is. The only way to improve it is
to reject the principle of "selectivity" and fund
ALL deserving applicants on a sliding scale or any
equivalent principle. Only those people with a
clear-case collapse of their research capacities
and a loss of direction should be given NIL-awards.
For all good reasons those will be pretty rare events.
To presume that ONE THIRD of all Canadian professors
(present NIL-rate) satisfy the above NIL-eligibility
(incimpetent, useless, unproductive, etc) is a sheer
nonsense and a gross insult to our universities.
Alex Berezin
From owner-cfbs@net.bio.net Thu Feb 27 22:00:00 1997
Path: biosci!cc.UManitoba.CA!umbjork1
From: umbjork1@cc.UManitoba.CA
Newsgroups: bionet.prof-society.cfbs
Subject: Grant committees ect
Date: 28 Feb 1997 05:02:24 -0800
Organization: BIOSCI International Newsgroups for Molecular Biology
Lines: 33
Sender: daemon@net.bio.net
Distribution: world
Message-ID:
NNTP-Posting-Host: net.bio.net
Dumb question from a mere grad student here.
1) If your grant is denied that means everyone else's grant applications,
i.e. all the funded types, were better than yours yes? I thought the
whole point of reviewing grants was to limit funding to only the really
good people? So therefore, if you get turned down, you're no good, so
quit complaining and crawl back under your rock.
2) 30% or more of the grants applied for get turned down. Therefore 30%
of the people out there (or more) are no good. Yes? How did our system
manage to generate so many worthless scientists and get them to the point
where they can clog up the system with so many worthless grants? Maybe we
should be cutting back the number of scientists?
3) If your grant application gets turned down, then you can simply appeal
if the decision was unfair and get your money anyway, right? So what is
the problem? I mean an honest system has a real appeal process.
4) In the history of science, at least as I've been taught, the newest
and best ideas that led to break throughs and great forward progress are
usually scoffed out by the "good" scientists of the day. Look at
McClintock, Pasteur, Mendel,Curie,...... If we are funding only 2/3 of
the people and calling everyone else worthless, and our own history says
we are most likely also cutting out the most important potential break
throughs, what kind of crazy system do we have going here?
Puzzled and concerned.
Natalie K Bjorklund
Genetics Premaster's Student
University of Manitoba
Winnipeg, Canada