I didn’t want to be in a position to write this post. I’ve procrastinated and debated whether I should or not – mainly because I don’t want it to come across as sour grapes. However, procrastination over…
2013 was a great year from the academic metrics point of view – many articles were written, twice I published articles which were written up in Nature Reviews, I got a PhD student across the line, I had more citations than every before, and my h-index continued to increase. My PBRF score came out a “B”, which given it was based on only 4 years work I was happy with, and to top it off 3 months ago my university promoted me to Associate Professor.
There are a number of reasons for this situation: (1) I failed to successfully beat other grant applicants to the prize – something I have to do regularly for me to survive in academia, (2) I failed to persuade the university to shift funds from one priority to another, and (3) I have failed to persuade (successive) governments to change the focus of their funding from projects to people. The reality of the situation in New Zealand is that within universities the position of investigator driven grant funded (only) research scientist is under threat. It is a “career path” which has all but disappered. Should this career path be cleared and made navigable once more? That’s something the policy makers in universities and government departments need to think about.
For me, the consequences are that the work I have been doing on Acute Kidney Injury must slow down dramatically. I’m still looking to carry on some work part-time – at the very very least I still have the data which patients have volunteered to provide which needs writing up and publishing. I see this as a moral responsibility.
Fortunately, this post is not all negative. Two weeks ago I began a part-time position as a Senior Research Scientist with the Emergency Care Foundation. This is a great opportunity to get involved with some world-class research emanating from the Emergency Department of Christchurch hospital. At a later stage I will post on the studies and trials we are running.
One last comment, Sir Peter Gluckmann wrote recently of the “Impact Agenda” for publicly funded research. He talked of what are sometimes seen as competing impacts – that of the universities with an emphasis on publications, citations, and that awful pathetic publication metric called the “impact factor”, and that of policy makers wanting research to impact public policy, societal health, the environment and the economy. I think there is a need for some given and take – academic institutions and academics need to take a breath and re-evaluate the public good of metric driven research – some changes to the PBRF system could help this. Indeed, I wish many of my fellow academics would recognise they are in a service industry, where ultimately they research for the good of the public. Policy makers and politicians, on the other hand, need to step back from treating scientists as if they were engineers who can be told to build something. Science just does not work like engineering, it is not a tool to be used to produce a desired output, rather a methodology by which great changes and great good can happen.