Ethics in research question

Toby Bradshaw toby at
Thu Aug 19 08:38:26 EST 1993

In article <1993Aug18.190242.5655 at>,
Michael G. Kurilla <mgk2r at Virginia.EDU> wrote:
>I think the above statment is a little extreme.  The principle
>jobs of the PI is to provide funds, concieve of the project (not
>necessarily the details of experiments), and provide oversight
>and review.  

I can't speak to every situation, but these "disconnected" PIs
(in my experience) don't do the bulk of the grant-writing, either.
Where I get my money, a grant proposal with "good ideas" and
"the big picture", but without the experimental and methodological
details that only a practitioner (vs. interested observer) is
likely to know, is doomed.  As the old saw goes, everybody has a
good idea that won't work.  Funding agencies want ideas that will
work.  Details are important.

[much deleted]

>PIs also spend a fair amount of time doing things that don't
>contribute directly to their research, but are necessary to
>keep the institution and the scientific establish functioning
>(committes, teaching, reviewing paper and grants).

So do university presidents and deans, but I don't put them on
my papers.  Authorship _demands_ large inputs of intellectual
or physical energy.  Everything else belongs in the acknowledgments.

Toby Bradshaw                       |
Department of Biochemistry          |  Will make genetic linkage maps
and College of Forest Resources     |            for food.
University of Washington, Seattle   |
toby at               |

------ Internet Message Header Follows ------
From: toby at (Toby Bradshaw)
Newsgroups: alt.grad-student.tenured,bionet.general,,sci.research
Subject: Re: Ethics in research question
Date: 18 Aug 1993 20:42:28 GMT
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Lines: 36
Message-ID: <24u47k$7nu at>
References: <1993Aug18.144401.18277 at> <1993Aug18.190242.5655 at>

More information about the Bioforum mailing list