Postdocs play an important role in the scientific enterprise and yet they often seem to slip through the cracks.

These relatively recent initiatives deserve recognition for helping the scientific community.

If universities are interested in incentivizing translational research, the economics for scientists needs to change.

By committing to this exercise, we might better understand why and how some grants get funded despite fatal flaws.

Startup culture is blurring the lines between universities as knowledge creators and companies as knowledge translators.

Contrary to current thinking in Canadian circles, David Kent says it is absolutely essential to tie the program to funding.

While anything can be funded, scientific research teams often need to demonstrate a realistic path to a financial return on investment to get funded.

The current academic career structure rewards short-term deliverables rather than high-risk, high-reward research.

How the Bayh-Dole Act succeeded in kickstarting an explosion of technological innovation.

The culture of scientific research desperately needs a makeover. Enter the eLife Ambassador program.

Translational research should be scientist-driven and institutionally supported, not the other way around.

After nearly 10 years, some issues have definitely moved on, but so many are still stuck in really dark and nasty places.

Feedback from multiple sources ensures that faculty are not disillusioning themselves with misguided opinions on their strengths and weaknesses.

Public perception of which cancers get research funding differs greatly from what actually gets funded. Here’s why. 

While every organization is different, sharing best practices can help inform process development.

It is sad that highly-qualified, highly-educated scientific researchers need to worry about pleading their case to have a national pension contribution.

The scientific profession is not for everyone, but there is no reason why we should actively be forcing people out.

How about offering permanent lecturers the ability to undertake research in a leading lab in the same department?

While no one is arguing for funding failure, the challenge is how we define “success.”

David Kent looks at whether it is ethical (and legal) for an academic to share a paper they are reviewing with their lab group.