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.

Among the most interesting implications is the recognition that universities are not exempt from patent infringement for basic research.

I can happily report that something has indeed changed at NSERC and the number of postdoctoral fellowships being awarded is definitely recovering.

This U.S. act allows biotech startups to use patented technology for the purposes of generating data for FDA approval without needing to take out costly licenses.

David Kent looks at some of the new ways scientific journals are trying to fix the current peer review system.

Kevin Leland created Halo, a curated fundraising platform for medical research, so that promising discoveries had a fighting chance to make it across the valley.

These committees review and provide input into scientific endeavors, but perhaps the merit of a project should also be assessed by how difficult it is to assemble this panel of experts.

As with scientific research in the time of “big data”, the critical thing for a researcher to identify is what sorts of questions the data might answer.

Clearly, our readers respond to posts on “career resources”, based on our own experiences.

Why should universities continue to own and profit from publicly funded work? If the public pays for it, why shouldn’t the public own it?

David Kent takes a closer look at some of the journal’s peer reviewers – and the results are distressing.