In article <33F9B9CD.41C6 at jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu>,
Dr. Paula J. Schlax <pjschlax at JHUVMS.HCF.JHU.EDU> wrote:
>>What do people think-
>How could science be restructured to answer questions more effectively
>and to retain the creativity and originality required to make
>outstanding discoveries? How can it be restructured so that a reasonbale
>number of people are trained and employed? (Would the institute model
>allow training? Would you be trapped working on the subject you received
>your training in?) We're all entrenched in the current system, can
>anyone see other ways to change things?
Paula,
I like your suggestion, although I haven't thought about it that much
(I only saw it a few minutes ago). What seems to me to be more important
though, or at least as important, is figuring out who to talk to about
any "restructuring" ideas we might have, and how to talk to them.
It sounds as if Judith Gibber had a bad experience back in 1987 when
she wanted to present data at an AAAS meeting (is that right? I can't
remember exactly which forum) hinting at the oversupply of scientists,
and she was not listened to by the "powers that be," and told that
her data were "too anecdotal" (and maybe "wrong"). We can have the
best ideas in the world, but if no one's listening, then, well, nothing
can be done.
Someone else on this list has suggested emailing President Clinton. I
suspect he's also not really the right target for our suggestions. But
who is? Harold Varmus? Keith Yamamoto (I think he was running for an
office in the AAAS)? Bruce Alberts? Grant administrators in the NIH?
Presidents or officers of our professional societies? Congress?
And how should we go about approaching these people? As individuals?
Through some sort of mass mailing campaign? Through fora such as the
AAAS meeting? As representatives of some sort of organization such as
the "Young Scientists' Network?" All of the above?
I'm unfortunately not very good at this sort of fact-finding . . . is
anyone else better?
Karen
