Passion about science

I had breakfast this morning with several faculty colleagues. We were discussing the odd question of what it takes to be successful in science. This is not a trivial matter. It certainly takes more than raw intelligence. There’s something beyond doing well in courses and scoring well on exams. There are experiments completed, papers written, talks given and fundamentally there is something more than the sum which gives rise to scientific success as measured of course by substantive scientific discovery.

I think back to the sport I played in high school: what we here in the US call soccer and the world calls football. Every weekend in my Arlington Virginia neighborhood I observe toddlers playing the same game that David Beckham and Pele played, albeit at a completely different level. And the difference in play across the spectrum of that sport is not simply raw talent. I’m sure that Malcolm Gladwell’s 10,000 hours plays an important role in turning a toddler into a soccer star. But there is also a passion to be the best that differentiates the teenage soccer “prodigies” from the Beckham-level athletes.
And that’s probably true for science as well. You can’t achieve at a top level in science without a combination of innate talent, Gladwell’s hours and a passion to be the best. As a result, other things in life have to give way perhaps–no doubt Tiger Woods gave up some quality time at some point to hone his golf game, even with his superior natural giftedness.
It can’t happen spontaneously–there’s the necessity for hard work (as well as good luck) to be counted among the best in science. That prioritization–that putting the science first: that’s passion.

Simulus the new baseline for science?

Jeffrey Mervis from ScienceInsider.com:

Several witnesses spoke in favor of using the numbers in the recently passed stimulus package—which add 50% to NSF’s regular budget and 40% to the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, for example—as a starting point. Although Mollohan was poker-faced during the hearings, he tipped his hand in a brief interview with ScienceInsider.

The ethical, legal and social implications of cognitive neuroscience: intel edition

Jonathan Moreno raises the specter of the use of neurotechnologies in the intelligence arena. I’m not at all sure I agree with his sinister take–but it’s worth considering as we consider that these technologies will become ubiquitous in society over the coming years. This is what we would definitely call a tripping hazard.

Jim

Harold Varmus on the Daily Show

.cc_box a:hover .cc_home{background:url(‘http://www.comedycentral.com/comedycentral/video/assets/syndicated-logo-over.png’) !important;}.cc_links a{color:#b9b9b9;text-decoration:none;}.cc_show a{color:#707070;text-decoration:none;}.cc_title a{color:#868686;text-decoration:none;}.cc_links a:hover{color:#67bee2;text-decoration:underline;}

http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms:item:comedycentral.com:219520

Reading the tea leaves

There’s an awful lot going on at the same time this week as far as science funding is concerned. Besides the Recovery Act, there’s the Omnibus Bill for the FY09 budget and then the blueprint for the FY10 budget–it’s all hitting at the same time and so this is not the time for drawing conclusions.

But it’s certainly the time to be preparing our faculty to move rapidly in terms of new opportunities for sponsored federal funding. Accordingly, just as we are retrenching in response to the economic crisis, we’re simultaneously brainstorming about the new science that might be possible with proper federal investment.
To my mind, science investment, is a major driver of the economy. In the current unprecedented conditions (at least in my lifetime), it’s the commonsense way to drive forward towards new technologies that will open up new opportunities, while at the same time educating our citizens to compete in an increasingly dynamic world. I hope the Obama Administration agrees.

NIH Simulus update

From Scienceinsider:

The National Institutes of Health will dedicate most of its $8.2 billion for research from the economic stimulus bill to funding grant applications it has already received and to supplementing existing grants. A smaller amount, on the order of $100 million to $200 million, will go to new grant applications it receives in the coming months.

Also mentioned are a new set of targetted challenge grants which will be for as much as $500K for two years.

It suggests to me that NIH is managing the new dollars in anticipation that it’s overall base budget will not change so much going forward.

Jim

Touching base after a short break

I’ve been pretty occupied with the budget over the past week, hence fewer posts than I would have liked. But I’ve been at it far to long to give up my blog! So I’ll take this time to point you to Olivia Judson’s blog at the NYTimes.com–she’s got a guest this time, he’s a bioengineering professor at Stanford and he’s advocating for a recalibration in how we fund science.

Jim

Running an Institute during an Economic Downturn

While the current Recession isn’t the first downturn I’ve lead the Institute through, it’s by far the worst. The combination of cascading negative external factors combined with the uncertainties have created a unique set of challenges. On the other hand, this time around, the Institute is well situated in terms of a scientific critical mass, an excellent sponsored research portfolio and the massive (and still growing) infrastructure of George Mason, Virginia’s public Carnegie Research university in the National Capital Area.

Given the times, and the fact that I’ve been director long enough to have seen downturns before, I thought that it might be useful to put down some of the principles that I am using to get us through the current difficult conditions:

1) Budgeting–prioritize to protect the core scientific/academic mission, realizing that with those two intact, all else can be quickly regenerated.

2) Transparency–keep all stakeholders up to date on exactly what is happening, what the current plan is, and where the uncertainties lie. Do this continuously in multiple contexts throughout the crisis. The result is to strengthen morale and to mitigate distracting what-if scenarios that can damage the scientific/academic programs.

3) Maintain a position that will allow for rapid transformation back into growth. While recessions are macro-economic events that affect scientific institutions, the nature of science funding is such that a massive downturn might happen in tandem with significant increases in federal science investment. It’s important to keep that in mind so that the institution is prepared to opportunistically emerge from hunkering down to compete and win new awards.

4) Protect support staff–those who have invested years to support the science of the institution may not be the feed grain, but they are surely the farmers, who through their experience, can both see us through the difficult times and make possible the conditions for scientific success in the future.

5) Fundraising–realize that the continued engagement with those who have given personally to the institution in the past, but may not be able to under the current circumstances, is central to the building of long-term loyalty so central to leadership level gift opportunities.

Jim