Leadership and Mentoring

Two Articles in Nature: Funding Risky Science and A Code of Ethics

I’d like to draw your attention to two articles in Nature, if you haven’t already seen them this morning. While I’m sure no one at Nature meant for the articles to be a compare and contrast duo, I think the two dovetail nicely into a very interesting conversation on the future of research.

A code of ethics to get scientists talking

Should the public citizenry be involved in the “identification of the question, conception of a project, discussion of results and dissemination”?

Fund ideas, not pedigree, to find fresh insight

Should funding entities direct 15% of their annual funds towards “science so risky that applicants would not normally consider putting forward the project for funding”?

Which article is most interesting to you? To what extent did the stories leave you with a sense of pride, hope, excitement, indifference, despair – or maybe with a mixture of such feelings?



Article publié pour la première fois le 06/03/2018

Further Reading