They didn't need to as significant portions of the preliminary research, development and training of future employees was done on the basis of federally funded research grants.
Also, in my own experience, a part of the higher-ups doesn't have any kind of family, therefore they are actually oblivious to the fact that you may have something going on outside the laboratory.
I wonder how true this is from a global perspective. Do the chair's of academic departments tend to have fewer or forgo children?
shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind
Yeah, in its current form, that prize isn't at all what Nobel intended it to be: A prize to help younger, still
aspiring scientist with their work.
Is that what Nobel intended? Do you have a quote to that effect from his will? As far as interpreting the "in the preceding year" in the context of science, often the award is given for discoveries that have yielded results that might not have been envisioned when the discoveries were made. The siRNA related award a few years ago had really only come into it's own after several years of development, perhaps qualifying it for "conferring the greatest benefit on mankind" (in medicine at least) only several years after the initial discovery.
Also, as I understand it, early awards were given to findings that proved dubious at best (cancer caused by worms? OH YEAH). Thus, the switch to see which findings age gracefully.
as well as a share going back to the funding agency (or agencies).
I've never heard of a university sending money back to NIH/NSF/other funding agency. Was this a typo or do you have experience somewhere that does this?
You are completely correct and people are not able to accurately compare MPG ratings, as demonstrated by a recent paper in Science. See article and blog post, which doesn't require subscription.
Perhaps the ENCODE project is a map for how genomic data will be produced in the near future. Quoting from the ENCODE project data use policy:
Users of Consortium data, whether members of the Consortium or not, should be aware of the publication status of the data they use and treat them accordingly. For example, all investigators, including other Consortium members, should obtain the consent of the data producers before using unpublished data in their individual publications. Any data collected by an ENCODE member lab, must be placed online immediately after verification. The verification step is usually an experimental replication, so the raw data goes into databases well before publication. By convention, the producers of the data have the first shot at publishing.
And then these same religious idiots are the ones who will bash the education system for not staying competitive with the rest of the world. This view probably doesn't come from the religious, it almost certainly comes from the upper echelons of science. The most recent trigger is the report from the National Academies' Rising Above the Gathering Storm.
Slashdot Mirror
Did you watch beyond the first 10 minutes?
At what point do the things you mentioned move from the little effort category?
Reference?
http://services.aamc.org/memberlistings/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.search&search_type=MS&wildcard_criteria=&state_criteria=CNT%3AUSA&image=Search
That doesn't change your primary point about a limited supply of doctors producing a higher cost though, but I thought you might want updated numbers.
Why is it one of the worst ideas since FairTax?
They didn't need to as significant portions of the preliminary research, development and training of future employees was done on the basis of federally funded research grants.
Also, in my own experience, a part of the higher-ups doesn't have any kind of family, therefore they are actually oblivious to the fact that you may have something going on outside the laboratory.
I wonder how true this is from a global perspective. Do the chair's of academic departments tend to have fewer or forgo children?
shall be annually distributed in the form of prizes to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind
Yeah, in its current form, that prize isn't at all what Nobel intended it to be: A prize to help younger, still aspiring scientist with their work.
Is that what Nobel intended? Do you have a quote to that effect from his will? As far as interpreting the "in the preceding year" in the context of science, often the award is given for discoveries that have yielded results that might not have been envisioned when the discoveries were made. The siRNA related award a few years ago had really only come into it's own after several years of development, perhaps qualifying it for "conferring the greatest benefit on mankind" (in medicine at least) only several years after the initial discovery.
Also, as I understand it, early awards were given to findings that proved dubious at best (cancer caused by worms? OH YEAH). Thus, the switch to see which findings age gracefully.
as well as a share going back to the funding agency (or agencies).
I've never heard of a university sending money back to NIH/NSF/other funding agency. Was this a typo or do you have experience somewhere that does this?
You are completely correct and people are not able to accurately compare MPG ratings, as demonstrated by a recent paper in Science. See article and blog post, which doesn't require subscription.
Actually they are planning to give the program to middle school students, have to satisfy NSF's outreach activity requirements after all.