The Black Hole
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.
How the Techna Institute’s team of professionals helps start-ups in Toronto by providing experts for secondment, in a cost-recovery model.
Equal access to information, experiences and diverse viewpoints needs to be made available to the wider scientific community.
A guide to changing the institutional thinking of translational research programs.
David Kent recounts the highs and lows of his journal club’s first pre-review experience.
The U.S. House of Representatives has recently passed legislation that potentially increases the tax burden for university students, faculty, and staff, while depleting resources for financial aid, research and teaching.
How do I encourage male scientists to join the discussion and be a role model for their colleagues?
What if scientific journal clubs discussed papers before submitting them to journals, and had a say before editors and reviewers did?