undefined | Better HN

0 pointsop00to1y ago0 comments

I've worked for both big R1 Universities as well as top-tier independent research institutes. I ran computing facilities that supported bioinformatics facilities, and spent my day interacting with both research leaders (PIs/faculty) and administration.

I don't believe point #1 - I have been involved in shared governance bodies as a student and staff, and at least where I've spent time, these bodies are strong.

For point #2, I never saw any shift of authority to administrators. In fact, I left academia because I was given a mission to centralize computing resources to ensure we're responsible stewards of the data we held. Instead, PIs would end-run around shared computing facilities, spending their own grant money on high end workstations, USB drives. I left and went into big tech because I was tired of fighting with essentially 50-100 small fiefdoms. The administrators were powerless, and if they tried to force the PIs to submit, they PIs would simply go someplace else.

For #3, while "impact factor" took on a larger role, I did not see a problematic shift in how we did science. Everyone was given adequate resources to participate in governance. If anything, the outsized influence individual PIs had over how they did their research made it more difficult to ensure data was stored safely, analyses were reproducible, and so on. That, to me, is a greater risk than the fear that administration was telling researchers what to research.

There are problems with higher ed in the US, but I don't understand how to equate a perceived shift away from "shared governance" with deep fundamental issues in the mission of our higher ed system. We need both a focus on educating young people (need to have fresh minds and bodies to keep the research machine churning) as well as basic AND cutting edge research to keep progress moving forward.

0 comments

nobodyandproud1y ago

For #2, are you saying the administration doesn’t hold the purse strings?

Why the resistance to the top-down approach?

Nobody resists if it means more resources; and faster procurement of resources.

Instead it seems researchers are forced to navigate politics and raise funding.

Or do you mean that each department has its own IT department and it’s resisting consolidation?

For #3: It’s not about resources but about how “impact factor” is measured, and whether it’s useful a useful metric.

Often, for example little attention is given to confirmation of a suspected dead-end. That still requires in-depth knowledge of the subject, is still research, and advances knowledge.

op00toOP1y ago

For #2, yes - the administration doesn't hold the purse strings. Each PI gets their own grants, and thus can control how much of the money is spent, barring overhead. I had to make a value proposition for the PIs to explain to them why they couldn't afford NOT to modernize their data storage. Unfortunately, it's cheaper to go to Staples and buy a USB drive than it is to pay for properly archived storage.

The resistance to the top down approach was, to me, misunderstanding the risks of storing their data outside of a safe place, and a fear of losing control of their data.

The last institute I worked at was focused on basic biomedical research - dead ends were what we chased all day!

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse