In among a long and interesting message, you made a number of important
points. Let me pick up just one.
You wrote, "Very few of the seminars and conferences that I have attended
suggest a professional approach to science. I don't wish to suggest that
science should become corporate, but many scientists do not seem to believe
that presenting their findings at an international conference warrants any
preparatory effort."
How right you are. Academics almost pride themselves in being permanently
out of it. I spend much of my life ringing universities trying to talk to
researchers about their work. Tracking them down is usually a nightmare. No
one knows who is where. They have no answering machines. They do not answer
e-mail messages.
In general they behave as if the rest of the world doesn't exist. This sends
out appalling signals to the "real" world.
If I were in corporate R&D and wanted to follow up a piece of interesting
academic work, I would have very severe doubts about working with these
throwbacks. When they behave like shoestring operations, why should I sign a
contract that pays them as if they were a commercial organisation?
What has this to do with PUS? Too many scientists exhibit the same "sod the
world" attitude. Why then should the public take any notice of their views,
or pay them sensible salaries?
Okay, the government has chewed away at the money for such things as
telephone operators and secretaries. But most of us have bought our own
answering machines and learned how to type. What makes Professor Braindead
so different?
Is it really necessary to be an organisational mess to be a brilliant
scientist? I doubt it.
MK
_______________________________________________________________________
©Michael Kenward OBE / Phone: +44 (0)1444 400568 Fax: 401064
/ Words are my living, just call if you
Science Writer & Stuff / want permission to use any of these
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|