Urgent News Regarding Scientific Funding
plaudrup at magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Wed May 31 18:38:23 EST 1995
Dear Dr. Laudrup:
I was forwarded your comments on funding cuts.
I genearlly agree with what you say, however
I would even further stress your figures, perhaps=
even reverse them : not a 10 % cut, but 90 % cut
is what we need to revitalize the science and stop
the idiocity of publish-perish hysteria.
Many now openly admit that ca. 90 % of what is
presently published is a short-term data production
without almost not significant consequences. We better
face this fact, than trying to conceal it.
Give to all (so to say, "active researchers") $ 20,000 to
30,000 operating grants (at most $ 50,000 ) and see how
the science will be doing. It will do just fine - and
a lot better than now.
for non-mediacl research most basic operating in the
region of $ 10,000 to $ 20,000 (or 25,000 canadian)
are sufficient for almost all cases
As for the political campaign, I would rather advocate
just the opposite: a need for even deeper cuts for
mega-science as it is (apparently the only) way to do
something with all-suffocating power of the grantsmanship
elite. Attached is a recent article on this topic (from
physics, but equally applicable to biomed area).
Yours sincerely - Alex Berezin,
Secretary for CARRF (Can.Association for Responsible
The above was e-mailed to mee, and with permission I have send it to the
newsgroup. The attached article mentioned has been deletede, but I will send it
to anybody who requests it.
More information about the Neur-sci