This weekly Nautilus column highlights some of the online discussion at Nature Network in the preceding week that is of relevance to scientists as authors.
The Nature Network week column is archived here.
In praise of the scientific amateur, Richard Grant writes: “the ‘cult of the amateur’ if you like, is tightly linked to our engagement with the wider public. There are a lot of very smart people out there who are not doing science as a day job. They may not have scientific training, and might in fact have some wrong-headed notions, but that does not mean they’re stupid. They may, in fact, have a lot to contribute. What, in effect, could we spool out to enthusiastic and capable amateurs in our own fields? Would it be useful? And as these people get involved, and talk to their friends and families, would it eventually serve to increase scientific literacy?”
Frank Gannon’s recent EMBO Reports editorial on bullying in science is discussed in some detail. Heather Etchevers refers to a HHMI booklet Making the Right Moves: a practical guide to scientific management for postdocs and new faculty, available free either as a download or by mail, which she and others have found helpful.
The Italian government is intending to interrupt the temporary employment in the public administration which will affect all the “precari” in the public research institutions in the country. The amendment, known as “Brunetta” after the minister of public administration and innovation, is supposedly aimed at cutting the cost of the temporary employment, increasing the efficiency and promoting the stabilization with competitive examination. Its practical effect, however, is that thousands of temporary employee will lose their job 30 days after the promulgation of the decree. Piero Visconti asks those in the Nature Network Italy forum: will you be affected by the amendment? Do you agree with the protest? What do you think is the most effective way to change the political agenda in terms of funding research and promoting job security for Italian researchers?
Anna Kushnir asks whether there “are aspects of a grad student’s personality which can serve as predictors for whether or not they remain in science, whether or not they love it or hate it by the end. I also wish to figure out how much of the decision is dictated by external factors, such as the quantity and quality of a student’s interaction with their advisor, or the success of abject failure of their thesis project(s). I guess I am asking if there are people who are pre-destined, programmed and fit to continue on in science. Who are those people? What are they like?” Provide your answers on an online postcard at Nature Network.