On 18 Aug 1997, Karen Allendoerfer wrote:
> I (Karen Allendoerfer) wrote:
>> >> in any given lab, there should be fewer people "in training" and more
> >> people who are already trained and working at a permanent job.
> >> And those people should be respected and paid what they're worth
> >> (including
> >> benefits, etc.)
>> SL Forsburg responded:
> >
> >How to effect these changes? For those of us in the transition from our
> >former
> >scientific culture to our uncertain new one, it's hard. As long as I am
> >judged by
> >the productivity and size of my lab, I have a strong incentive to keep
> >expanding.
> >People who do, of course, contribute to the "disposable student/postdoc"
> >
> >attitude. That has to change.
>> Yes, I understand. I don't blame individual PI's at all for this after
> hearing the pressures that they are under.
>> I think that Linnea Ista pointed to the problem when she said that she,
> a highly-qualified member of the "research staff," was a nonentity on a
> grant proposal that she was helping to write!
I just wanted to clarify something. On the proposals themselves there is a
space for me to be included (and funded). It is when we do progress
reports that there is not. This is only on the coversheet where you
"tally" the demographics. Which leads to an interesting math problem: they
ask on some grants how many women and/or people from underrepresented
ethnic groups are working on the project. I *do* get counted on that <vbg>
My boss does give me credit in the main body of the report, and my
publications and presentations are counted, it's just that
I am not tallied as a scientist (other than a woman) on the mathmatical
part of the report.
Linnea
