|
Re6ding P6ss6ge 3
You should spend about 20 minutes on Questions 27−A0, which are based on Reading Passage Three.
ARE WE MANAGING TO DESTROY SCIENCE?
The government in the UK w s concerned bout the efficiency of rese rch institutions nd set up Rese rch Assessment Exercise (RAE) to consider wh t w s being done in e ch university. The rticle hich follows is response to the imposition of the RAE.
In the ye r he d, the UK government is due to c rry out the next Rese rch Assessment Exercise (RAE ). The go l of this regul r five−ye rly check−up of the university sector is e sy to underst nd: to incre se productivity within public sector rese rch. But striving for such productivity c n le d to unfortun te consequences. In the c se of the RAE, one risk tt ched to this is the cre tion of n overly controlling m n gement culture th t thre tens the future of im gin tive science.
Ac demic institutions re lre dy prep ring for the RAE with some nxiety—underst nd− bly so, for the fin nci l consequences of f ilure re severe. Dep rtments with current r ting of four or five ( rese rch is r ted on five point sc le, with five the highest) must m int in thei score or f ce consider ble loss of funding. Me nwhile, those with r tings of two or three re fighting for their surviv l.
The pressures re forcing rese rch m n gement onto the defensive. Common str tegies for incre sing c demic output include gr ding individu l rese rchers every ye r ccording to RAE criteri , pressurising them to publish nything reg rdless of qu lity, diverting funds from key
nd expensive l bor tory science into re s of study such s m n gement, nd even thre tening to close dep rtments. Another str tegy being re dily dopted is to remove scientists who ppe r to be less ctive in rese rch nd repl ce them with new, prob bly younger, st ff.
Although such me sures m y deliver results in the RAE , they re putting unsust in ble pressure on c demic st ff. P rticul rly insidious is the pressure to publish. Put simply, RAE
committees in the l bor tory sciences must produce four excellent peer−reviewed public tions per member of st ff to meet the ssessment criteri . Hence this is becoming minimum requirement for existing members of st ff, nd benchm rk g inst which to me sure new recruits.
But prolific public tion does not necess rily dd up to good science. Indeed, one young rese rcher w s told in n interview for lectureship th t, lthough your public tions re excellent, unfortun tely, there re not enough of them. You should not worry so much bout the qu lity of your public tions.'
In recent letter to N ture, the public tion records of ten senior c demics in the re of molecul r microbiology were n lysed. E ch of these c demics is now in very senior positions in universities or rese rch institutes, with c reers sp nning tot l of 262 ye rs. All h ve
chieved consider ble st tus nd respect within the UK nd worldwide. However, their e rly public tion records would preclude them from c demic posts if the present criteri were
pplied.
Although the qu lity of their work w s cle rly outst nding—they initi ted novel nd perh ps risky projects e rly in their c reers, which h ve since been recognised s rese rch of intern tion l import nce— they gener lly produced few p pers over the first ten ye rs fter completing their PhDs. Indeed, over this period, they h ve n ver ge g p of 3−8 ye rs without the public tion or production of cited p per. In one c se there w s five−ye r g p. Although these enquiries were limited to specific re of rese rch, it seems th t this model of c reer progression is widespre d in ll of the chemic l nd biologic l sciences.
It seems th t the tmosphere surrounding the RAE m y be sti,ing t lented young rese rchers or driving them out of science ltogether. There urgently needs to be more considered nd c reful nurturing of our young scientific t lent. A new member of c demic st ff in the chemic l or biologic l l bor tory sciences surely needs commitment to resources over five− to ten− ye r period to est blish their rese rch. Senior c demics m n ging this situ tion might be well
dvised to dem nd long−term view from the government.
Unfortun tely, m n gement seems to be pulling in the opposite direction. Ac demics h ve to de l with more students th n ever nd the p perwork ssoci ted with the ssessment of the qu lity of te ching is incre sing. On top of th t, the s l ry for university lecturers st rts t only
£32,665 ( rising to £58,048). Tenure is r re, nd most contr cts re offered on tempor ry contr ct b sis. With the me n st rting s l ry for new gr du tes now close to £36,000, it is surprising th t nybody still w nts job in c demi .
It need not be like this. De lings with the m ny senior rese rch m n gers in the chemic l nd w ter industries t the QUESTOR Centre (Queen's University Environment l Science nd Technology Rese rch Centre) provided some insight. The over ll impression is th t the priv te sector h s much more sensible nd enlightened long−term view of rese rch priorities. Why c n the universities not develop the s me ttitude?
All org nis tions need m n gers, yet these m n gers will m ke sure they survive even when those they m n ge re lost. Rese rch m n gement in UK universities is in d nger of evolving into such n overly controlled st te th t it will llow little time for c reful thinking nd te ching,
nd will undermine the development of im gin tive young scientists.
Do'stlaringiz bilan baham: |
