Austrian Polar Scientist Loses His Job While In The Antarctic
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 янв 2024
- Young scientist Klemens Weisleitner was on expedition a when he got an email confirming that his tenure at the University in Innsbruck was coming to an end. Even though his self-funded ice-study projects were not yet finished. He explains his frustration to radio fm4's Chris Cummins.
Кино
In Germany we also have similar regulations and until now I always thought they were made to protect the researcher. Essentially, after working 8 years in an institute with temporary contracts, which gives you no financial stability in life, the institute is forced to give you a permanent contract or let you go. Quite often they'll give you a permanent contract. If not it might be better to move on...
If you're bringing your "own money", why do you have to be connected to a University? Why can't you created a business or a not for profit business that your patrons fund?
They mean they had their own research grant, i.e. they were paid by a funding agency rather than the University. But, funding agencies generally don't accept independent applications, they want institutions to support the applicants. So all grant applications are written jointly with a host institute who makes certain promises around supporting the researcher, managing the money and legal stuff etc.
Thanks for the response @@ninjafruitchilled
I would say the money comes from Interested parties and the University is the entity to make everything appear like honesty, we understand Honest people like Biden don't we.
You sound like an employee, not a contractor. We call this sham contracting in the building industry.
That's kind of the point of these regulations. They're supposed to stop people being trapped on short term contracts forever and never moved to permanent staff. However universities just opt to get rid of people pretty much 100% of the time rather than make people permanent staff.
I see many benefits for term limits on researchers. First of all it brings in new people into the field and forces the researchers out into the practical world to get up close and personal with practical world problems.
Alternatively, I would support removing the term limits if you simultaneously remove public funding. Again, this would push research into solving practical world problems
Anyone who's done research knows that there's a lot of junk studies and 'literature reviews' out that yield nothing to move the field forward.
90% of scientists will always find the conclusion that placates the people who are funding the research.
If you don't publicly fund research then scientific progress will grind to a halt. Pretty much zero fundamental research is profitable such that a corporation would do it. There are a few exceptions for enormous companies, e.g. Google doing AI research and Intel doing quantum computing research, but for the most part fundamental science will die, and terrible consequences for mankind will follow in the decades after as industry destroys the world and no-one publishes any research on why and how that is happening. And innovation in industry will likewise slow to a trickle as the feed of ideas from fundamental research is cut off.
@@thedave7760That's why you need funding from government instead of for profit institutions. For profit only care about profits, and if your conclusions don't support profit, they will never pay you for research.
Government has its problems, but when choosing to fund research, research proposals are typically adjudicated by academics, not partisan politics or for profit. (because research grants are not managed by political parties, but by bureaucracies - an important layer that typically [not always!] insulates decision making from politics)
@@meateaw Grants [in the USA] are a MAJOR funding stream to Universities. Try to get a grant without a University written into your grant proposal and see what happens.
Universities pressure researchers [potential professors] to chase grants irrespective of the merits of the research. If they fail to obtain 'enough' grant money they risk loosing their tenure.
Typically, grants are obtained by individuals that are researching the fields that have political acceptance by the Academics in charge. These Academics are nearly universal in their left-leaning globalist politics.
No Monopoly Money.
So the system had caused planned obsolescence in fields of work also.
🤣🤣🤣