moving around/climate for women

Sarah Boomer sarai at
Tue Jun 11 19:20:30 EST 1996

In regards to a couple of posts:  my original post was aimed at the
post-doctoral and faculty positions that, because of the way that grants
are reviewed, mark down candidates for not picking up and moving away to
assume a position.  When I said that I knew people who were denied
funding, I did mean that post-docs who stayed even remotely near their
university of origin were denied funding for an available position because
they didn't move across the country or world to do training in a new
location.  I have been considering doing a post doc myself and perused
several major applications that explicitly state:  training must be done
at an institute other than the place where you did prior training and if
not a complete explanation of why must be included.  This is where I have
problems with legality or fairness.  If there is a post doc position
available at the university where you trained and you are qualified, why
should the scientific structure be set up against this kind of scenario -
i.e. why should the community "force" your to move.  This is where I find
it to be inherently anti-family and, frankly, do question the fairness and
legality of such a subjective criterion for evaluating performance.
Either the person is qualified for the job or he/she isn't.  Does is occur
to evaluators that maybe moving disrupts peoples' lives and, in effect,
make them poorer scientists?  Is there any proof that a scientist who
moves around is better?  With all the move towards electronics and
meetings, can we all say that moving around still gives people some edge
because of they have joined a new environment?  What is a new environment,
really - a different dept. can be a totally new place here at the UW?

Sarah Boomer				email:  sarai at
Dept. of Microbiology			work phone:  543-3376
Box 357242				work FAX:  543-3376
University of Washington
Seattle, WA  98195

personal homepage:

More information about the Womenbio mailing list