New ! This one suggests that good offers an escape to the problem faced by many (most? all?) contemporary group leaders in . Hope you like it! 👇


I liked it. Thanks for sharing.

This sounds like it might be in danger of embracing the meaningless extractive treadmill at the end, when the meaningless extractive requirements for publications, which serve the purpose of getting grants, which are arguably for predefined agendas external to academia or the researchers vying for them.

The focus on the "good scientist" seems to be the question: What do you mean by "good"? Is a "bad" scientist the one who is on the meaningless treadmill pursuing publications to get grants? Is a "good" scientist someone who chooses to pursue topics of research that are important to the general welfare of everyone in society? It is not clear exactly what you mean by "good" when you refer to the scientist.

@TIR_scienceblog very nice piece - I liked the running to stand still analogy. I guess the goal is to mentor well and do that in a way that generates papers and grants. Focussing on one to the detriment of the other is bad for trainees, or bad for the group.


This resonated a lot with me, and I've long said that the most important output of my lab is scientists, not science (and tried to live by it).

One thing I want sure about though: you say papers and grants benefit the lab head more than the members, but I'm not sure that's true. Lab members need papers to get their next job I (hopefully) have got the list job I'll ever have. If I don't get funding, I don't lose my job, but everyone else does.

@IanSudbery @TIR_scienceblog This is operating from the viewpoint that everybody should stay in academia. In industry nobody cares much about the papers (patents, IP, yes, papers no). Given that attrition in academia is 95% for those starting the PhD, I would argue that indeed a PI needs the papers more.

Now this being said, I think that happy scientists will do good work and publish better (not necessarily more) work. So focusing there will by far be the most successful way to publish.

@koen_hufkens @TIR_scienceblog

This assumes that everyone moves directly out of academia from being a student, and that they all move to industry. 95% of people not becoming faculty is not the same as 95% of students immediately leaving non-commericial research.

9 people have left my lab so far (8 students, 1 postdoc). 5 have gone on to postdocs, 2 to education and 2 to technical service provision.

My industrial collaborators are very keen on publishing papers.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Qoto Mastodon

QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves
An inclusive, Academic Freedom, instance
All cultures welcome.
Hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.