Date: 2011-12-22 11:15 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Because there isn't enough red tape surrounding university funding already, and *of course* the only kind of research out there is business and technology focused.

Date: 2011-12-22 11:49 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Certainly it needs to be accessible. What winds me up is the introduction of yet more bureaucracy (that cuts into student contact time) and the assumption that there is only one kind of research.

Date: 2011-12-22 05:02 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I wish I could share your hope, but so far, every move to codify research has led to even more red tape.

Date: 2011-12-22 05:39 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I'm very much in favour of this sort of requirement, but even with the best will in the world, it will be bureaucratic.

What about work that's jointly funded? What about a paper spanning work from more than one funder? (With possibly mutually-incompatible requirements?) What about re-analysis or meta-analysis by third parties? What about review articles? What about work written up after all funding has ceased? (Possibly temporarily.) What counts as peer-reviewed?

The NIH specifies some of this. Other public sector funders will have their own regulations and requirements. Commercial, charity and foundation funders are likely to take an entirely different line. (Some charities and foundations might well fall in with widespread public sector practice, but by no means all. Commercial research funders often have very hard-line policies about not publishing, at least for a certain length of time and/or only after scrutiny/veto.) Universities and subject bodies have their own requirements and/or traditional practices for paper depositing. Almost all researchers get funding from multiple bodies, so there will multiple regulations, which will differ. With luck and a lot of international coordination the amount of mutual incompatibility will be minimised, but I suspect it's unavoidable.

All of these requirements and compliance data will need to be logged, captured, reported and audited, on both funder and funding recipient side. Very little of which can be done by non-specialists.

I still think it's worthwhile, but to pretend it's cost-free is mistaken.

Date: 2011-12-22 11:38 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
that teacher is AWESOME!

Until I was 14 or so, anyone who didn't know me automatically called me "son". I was never the princess when the dressing up box came out. I played with bikes, knives, climbing trees and setting fire to stuff , music, judo and and later, computers and karate. Most of my friends were boys. On the rare occasions my mum put me in a dress/skirt I pretty much looked like a boy in drag [I had very short hair by 70's standards because it is *horrible* to look after]. Fortunately I was pretty oblivious as to whether anyone thought this was weird, and my parents never really subscribed to the whole boys toys/girls toys thing. I got microscopes, books, crystal growing kits, scalextrix (sp?) and toy soldiers and matchbox cars - and, yes, the odd baby/sindy doll.

I do joke that I didn't really grow up as a girl at all.

Date: 2011-12-22 11:39 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Konrad Lorenz, reincarnated as a dog.

Date: 2011-12-22 12:15 pm (UTC)
simont: (Default)
From: [personal profile] simont
"Ducklings always travel in single file, to hide their numbers."

Date: 2011-12-22 01:09 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Interesting recap of the eurozone crisis. I had no idea German unions had unilaterally agreed to keep wages down.

Date: 2011-12-22 05:46 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
saved from lowering wages


Wages in the UK went down 3.5% in the last year, and from memory they were down the year before as well, and possibly the one before that too. See e.g.

Or did you mean saved from lowering nominal wages? Which is indeed an important thing - it's becoming increasingly apparent in the current eurocrisis that nominal wages are very, very hard to lower.

But that's rather different from an unqualified "wages". Inflation does matter!

Date: 2011-12-22 01:54 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
About 5-10 years ago, Germany's economy was in the shitter. Government, businesses and the unions agreed on a painful package of austerity measures that eventually rescued the economy, but did in Gerhard Schröder's government. This is one of the reasons why Germany doesn't particularly want to bail out any of the southern European countries without strings attached - they went through pain, why shouldn't others?

Date: 2011-12-23 02:31 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
I find it odd as well the amount of complaining being done by countries moaning about all the strings that come attached. Like... they expected the Germans to just give them limitless free money?

Date: 2011-12-22 03:06 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Realy makes me wonder why new council homes aren't being built? Sheer inertia and stupidity, or hidden reasons (like it would cause house prices to stop rising)?

Date: 2011-12-22 03:38 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
Central government should be able to borrow money for projects that will break even or better in the long term. (and avoid doing it for other things). This is well known, or at least it used to be.

For quite a long time, there was incentive for the UK government(s) to not encourage house-building in London - increasing the number of houses available would have stopped or slowed the rise in prices, and this rise made people feel wealthier (and gave them an asset to borrow against) and thus made them feel that their government was doing a good job, since they never had it so good. The only problem with this plan is that it was unsustainable.
Edited Date: 2011-12-22 03:45 pm (UTC)

Date: 2011-12-22 10:29 pm (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
the only problem with this plan is that it was stupid and unsustainable. What else is there, that most people need to buy, where prices going up is generally thought to be a Good Thing? I do not understand this. Yes, they would get more money if they sold, but they'll probably need to buy another one.

Date: 2011-12-23 03:18 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile]
It's interesting that letting the German banks who made the bad loans take part of the loss doesn't seem to be conceived of as part of dealing with the mess . . .
The Germans seem to think that everyone ought to go to a heavily export-oriented economy like they did. the Lake Woebegon solution.

October 2017

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 1718192021

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 18th, 2017 01:49 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios