Open rough draft for forming a RC advocacy group.....
llsmith at mindspring.com
Wed Jan 17 22:21:29 EST 2001
Regardless of my views on this endeavour, I recognize that I cannot become
involved in this if you are for the simple reason that I don't think you or I
ever be able to work together on anything, and I don't think you are about to
dispute that claim. I do, however, offer you my best wishes for whatever you
are able to develop.
There is one comment in your post, though, that you might want to consider
further (down at the bottom of the excerpt I've quoted). You state that any
such organization "can't be dominated by one person." In the sense that you
mean he or she cannot be allowed to dictate the agenda, and that other views
must be allowed to be presented and considered, I agree with you completely.
However, to be successful an endeavour such as this must be lead by someone
with a passion for the cause. There will be pitfalls and setbacks galore, and
someone who's in it because they "think it's a good idea" are not likely to
stay the course through the troubled times. For someone who feels 'called' to
the cause (as it were), these setbacks are something to be endured "for the
greater good." In that sense, I think you _do_ need someone to 'dominate'.
Arthur Sowers wrote:
> This post is a spontaneous attempt to form a few ideas re the subject of a
> Research Careers Advocacy organization. I favor the phrase 'research
> careers' because both applied and basic scientists should feel comfortable
> with that designator phrase.
> I have made, over the years, a number of posts regarding a project
> representing some real work: the formation of an organization that would
> benefit _individual_ practitioners of the sciences (whether pure or
> applied) and their careers. This is a repeat attempt to see if there are
> any people out there that might be interested.
> Third. Goals. It can't be dominated by one person.
More information about the Bioforum