Science

“Required” International Collaboration?

I recently read an article in Sky Magazine about the Executive MBA that highlighted how more and more EMBA programs are requiring international experiences during their programs. Some required only a week abroad for a 12 month program, while others incorporated various international stays for 5 out of 17 months. Other programs that have mainly foreign students, their time in the US constituted their international experience. Reading about these EMBA programs got me thinking…is there a place for similar training during scientific grad school and would it be beneficial? Could we somehow incorporate a semester or even a year of research abroad?

I think that this would have the greatest chance of success during the third or fourth year when you have a sound understanding of your thesis and what experiments are needed to support your hypothesis. By your fourth year you should be fairly independent, but could also benefit greatly from learning a new technique to address your central hypothesis and have input from someone with a different background (both scientific and nationality). As a senior grad student you would have the communication and experimental design skills necessary to plan out experiments in advance so you could hit the ground running in your new laboratory. Having the opportunity to do research abroad during grad school would also help you network and prepare for the next stage of your career while supporting international scientific collaboration.

In a way, some people already do this by going to grad school in another country. Still others have taken opportunities to obtain grant funding that pays for you to visit another lab to learn a new technique, such as the Michael Smith Foreign Supplement Award from NSERC offered to Canadian graduate students who have CIHR, SSHRC, or NSERC funding. There are also programs, such as the NIH OxCam program where you can obtain your degree through NIH that will send you to another lab to learn a new technique, or obtaining a grant from the International Research Fellowship Program (currently not offered) that funds postdoctoral studies abroad. I personally know several people who have obtained these funds and no one was disappointed with their experience, so why not incorporate it into the PhD program?

Do you think that training in a foreign country should be required for the PhD? Please share your experiences?

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Cast your vote for the 2013 Best Places To Work

I hope everyone in the US had a relaxing Labor Day Weekend and were able to take some time off from their research projects.

After some much needed R&R, are you looking forward to going back to work? Well, The Scientist wants to know. They are conducting their annual best places to work survey for 2013. For those of you following our blog, you might remember our recent comments on mentoring weaknesses of 2012′s top 25 life science academic institutions.

Since RateMyPI.com was founded on the notion that a healthy work environment is essential for scientific success, I encourage everyone to take the time and fill out this survey. If you’re proud of where you work or with whom you work for, let other scientists know. And, if you’re not so proud, let others know that too. The more people who vote, the more accurate the survey. Responses are confidential and you will be entered into a drawing for a $100 Amazon gift card.

The Scientist will publish their results starting in April of 2013. By then, RateMyPI.com may have profiles of leading scientists at each of these top ranked institutions. We’ll be sure to highlight who our members feel are influential to their career success.

To stay updated on these results, please sign-up to follow our blog.

Follow the links below to vote or leave a comment below to let everyone know why your institution is one of the best places to work.

Postdocs
Industry
Academia

Innovation Corps

I recently wrote a post about entrepreneurship in science and received a lot of feedback. While most people agreed that “with the overabundance of highly educated and specialized STEM workers, we are going to need to be able to fabricate our own jobs”, there was a wide range of ideas on how much government involvement should be in place to help support entrepreneurial scientists. One of our followers shared information on an intensive eight week government program funded by the NSF (Innovation Corps) that is the brain child of Errol Arkilic, a program director at NSF, and a 2012 Harvard Business Review “Master of Innovation” Steve Blank. I found it intriguing and wanted to pass it along to you. The pilot classes of Innovation Corps seem to have potential and be set up to give you real life experience using your own creations. Everyone in the program is part of a 3 person teams…one NSF funded PI and his graduate student or postdoc who are appointed as the “Entrepreneurial Lead.” The third member of each group is a mentor with previous start-up experience. As someone who would prefer that the government paid down debt rather than fund entrepreneurs, this program makes my mouth water. And it got me thinking…wouldn’t a version of this, maybe combined with an introduction to accounting be a great addition to the PhD curriculum? Even if you didn’t go the entrepreneur route, the accounting/financial aspect would be beneficial both in academics and industry. After all, a team leader is not only responsible for obtaining grant funding, but also managing (salaries, supplies, conferences) that funding throughout the duration of the grant.

What do you think? Would you welcome the addition of a class focused on entrepreneurship, innovation, and accounting?

Update September 6, 2012:
I just found out that the Dublin Institute of Technology offers a structured PhD program that includes training in skills such as communication, innovation and entrepreneurship, leadership and teamwork, and career management. For those of you thinking about getting your PhD, it is worth taking a look at.

Tagged , , , ,

Entrepreneurship in Science

I was browsing the internet the other day and saw a link for “Grants to Encourage Entrepreneurship in Science and Technology for Women”.  Being a woman in science and a new entrepreneur, I decided to click on the link.  What it took me to was a slightly informative, and incredibly self-serving article in Forbes written by the United States Chief technology Officer, Todd Park.  The title was “What Efforts Has President Obama Made While In Office To Encourage Entrepreneurship And Innovation?”  I read on hoping to get to the part that is specific to women entrepreneurs in science…

“Promoting high-growth entrepreneurship” where I learned that the Administration has committed to match $2 billion private investments in high growth companies, is trying to make it easier for graduates to manage their student loans, and is taking credit for Startup America Partnership connecting startups with private-sector funding.  Why is our government so interested in funding startups?  As someone heavily invested in a startup, I think it is great, but as a taxpayer I think that there are several other places that you can go to fund a startup, such as angel investor groups, the bank, and other private-sector funding/grants.  Our country is in enough debt.  Let’s put our capitalistic roots to good practice.  Dreams can and do come true in America, but it is not the government’s job to supply us with the seed money.

Under “Helping accelerate technology breakthroughs” I learned about the Obama Administration’s advancements in space exploration…umm, aren’t we moving away from NASA and towards privatization of space exploration? 

Finally, we are starting to get into the research part…apparently, “President Obama has implemented the largest increase in federally funded research and development in history”.  Wow, I am really glad to hear that!  Just one question…Does anyone know any scientists in the US that thinks it is actually easier to get funding or that there is more money available for research???  We would love to hear from you.

Sadly, there was nothing on opportunities for women entrepreneurs in science.

The article also reiterates the Administration’s stance on science and technology and that more people need to go into science.  In the next decade they plan to have an additional 100,000 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) teachers and graduate 10,000 more engineers every year.  However, the article did not acknowledge that if you do decide to pursue the STEM path that it is going to be hard to get a position in academia and the funding that is often required to obtain said position.  Leaving the other main option of going into industry where the positions are also scarce due to outsourcing and downsizing.  Maybe that is why the article focuses on entrepreneurs.  With the overabundance of highly educated and specialized STEM workers, we are going to need to be able to fabricate our own jobs. 

RateMyPI.com does not endorse any candidate, but we do urge you to research their stance on issues important to you.  For a good overview on the candidate’s scientific platforms we encourage you to visit AAAS.org.

Tagged , , , ,
Page 4 of 6« First...23456