by ACS to the sports bar Imille E 'out today on the site of
Imille my contribution, which incorporates a
debate that there was a few months ago on C & EN, the magazine of the American Chemical Society. The report even here.
Evaluation of university research: the debate over ocean In recent months, with the Gelmini reform was (and is) very speaking on evaluation of the activities of researchers and university professors. The system of tenure, which eliminates the figure of the young researcher for an indefinite period is clearly inspired by the American system. E 'then interesting to note that precisely during the discussions, disputes sometimes too "a priori" and the defenses even these too without knowledge and reflection, was conducted on Chemical & Engineereng News (C & EN, the magazine of the American Chemical Society ) and then a discussion on the assessment of the meaning of basic research today. It all started with an editorial of 11 October 2010 Allen J. Bard, a professor of chemistry at the University of Texas at Austin. The editorial provocatively titled It's not the money, stupid! has resulted, as expected, many reactions and the debate that followed has been reported in the edition of C & EN 13 December 2010 [1], just as we expected the fall of the government and this was the end of ' approval process of the reform Gelmini. What
Bard said in its editorial of October? His central thesis is that the culture of academic research has moved in the last 50 years from the assessment based on the teaching, creativity and productivity to one based simply on the amount of money that can be obtained. For this, he continues, the faculty members are now judged by the same committees in the departments (then consisting of academics) more on the basis of research funds obtained, the quality of work then actually done. Being assessed on funds obtained is clearly a signal, a recognition of the earlier work, however, be evaluated only (or mainly) these can not be a scientific assessment because often the people who makes the final decision for the allocation of funds , says Bard, project managers are government agencies that are far from the most advanced research. Another problem, perhaps one of the most serious, because this system leads to a More and more research funds, is that young scientists spend 70% of their time writing projects, and this in what is the most prolific period of a scientist. Time is increasingly taken to the supervision of students, and then to the training of new scientists. In support of the thesis Bard could always cite the most common cases of scientific fraud, including one of the most famous is that of a Columbia student whose supervisor had to withdraw two articles in which student (B. Sezen) and professor ( D. Sames) were the authors, because later in the group were aware that the data were not reproducible. Data that was found to be totally fictitious. The student had just falsificato degli spettri NMR! Un caso sul quale il federal Office of Research Integrity ha trovato ben 21 effrazioni, come spiegato in dettaglio nello stesso sito dell’American Chemical Society [2] e che è considerato uno dei peggiori incidenti di frode scientifica della comunità chimica.
Per tornare all’editoriale di Bard, uno dei potenziali pericoli segnalati che stanno nascendo generati dal sistema è il sempre maggiore interesse delle Università non solo negli overheads ottenuti dai fondi (quando un gruppo in una università ottiene un finanziamento da una agenzia, una parte di questo va al dipartimento che lo ospita) ma direttamente nella generazione di proprietà intellettuale per aumentare il vantaggio direttamente statement obtained by the institution. This is clearly seen as an evil in itself (as some detractors Bard trying to say) but if taken as a single criterion results in distortions dangerous, as usual when you take a single evaluation criterion.
But perhaps one of the greatest dangers is what sets Bard in his conclusions. If you work closely with students and conduct long-term basic scientific research is no longer the daily activities of the scientist, but money is the most important thing, then you enter into competition with more lucrative professions than academic. Why, then, a brilliant young science student should be having come modello finale poi lo stesso lavoro quotidiano di altre professioni del mondo della finanza sicuramente pagate di più?
L’editoriale di Bard ha sollevato un vivace dibattito in cui si sono criticati alcune sue affermazioni ma anche segnalata la fondatezza di alcuni pericoli da lui sollevati. In particolare Prestwich e Wight (University of Utah) contrappongono al modello tradizionale (cui è chiaramente legato Bard, PhD ad Harvard nel 1957, un non giovanissimo che ha però più di 850 pubblicazioni su riviste internazionali di cui quattro già nel 2011, quindi non un anziano barone sfaccendato) in cui l’accademico ottiene il rispetto dei suoi pari grazie alle pubblicazioni nelle riviste di maggior prestigio, ottenendo research grants and winning awards, a new model in which respect is social respect that you get so when their activities have a positive impact on the rest of the population. A new model for scientists of the era of widespread knowledge and continuing education, where it has everything to gain if you make clear the connection between taxes paid and research from this grant. A new generation of academic entrepreneurs, "continue Prestwich and Wight, who are used to identify and solve real world problems, to transfer basic research in applied technology and products at the same time to obtain all scientific publications. Serving the University of mass then because teachers are not only for that 5% of students who will become a professor or a scientist but for the 95% that will go in the real world and become political, a businessman, writer, director of the company.
Starting then from the criteria for tenure evaluation of the debate has now shifted to the definition of the border (if any) between basic and applied research, especially in the border that chemistry is often very well defined.
is all the more interesting and instructive to see how the criteria for assessing university and then defining the role of the University in society are changing something and no system has certezze granitiche sui cui basarsi sempre e comunque. Questo non vuol dire assolutamente che la valutazione è un male in sé, anzi Bard chiede valutazione ma non a senso unico, non chiede finanziamenti a pioggia, vuole sganciare il legame a volte perverso tra valutazione e finanziamenti, senza eliminare nessuno dei due. Quando quindi in Italia, e in molti altri stati d’Europa, si iniziano ad utilizzare, giustamente, sempre più sistemi di valutazione basati su commissioni, agenzie, progetti nazionali e sovranazionali, è bene vedere i problemi che esistono dove questo tipo di sistema è in vigore da molto tempo e, dialogando al nostro interno e con chi lo conosce meglio di noi, cercare di considerare tutti i differenti aspetti.
Why approach a creed, on the one side, never brings anything positive but still distortion. And because it defined the contours of the model that we adopt are related to the relationship that we imagine in the future society of innovation, scientific research, university teaching and learning, social, economic and cultural.
Notes
1) can be accessed from here
complete article.
2) A notice of the ACS is the
here.
