26

My struggle against The State Science Institute

Posted by $ jbrenner 7 years, 4 months ago to Government
31 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

It is bad enough to be asked by your own country's State Science Institute (the NSF) to perform altruism. Performing altruism to a help a competitor in a different country petition his government to steal from their citizens is beyond the pale.

What follows next is the request from Canada's State Science Institute:

Dear Dr. Brenner:

I am writing on behalf of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) to request your assistance in reviewing the following Discovery Grant proposal. We ask that you treat all of the information below in the strictest confidence.

Applicant’s name: Frei, Hanspeter
Institution: Carleton University
Title of proposal: Advancing fused deposition modelling
Keywords: Additive manufacturing; Fused deposition modelling; 5 axes printing; Finite element modelling; Mechanical characterization; Orthopaedic implants; Thermoplastic polymer

If you agree to this request, you will receive information on how to access the application through a secure site. In order for the Evaluation Group to receive your comments before its meeting, your report has to be returned no later than January 6, 2017.

The NSERC Discovery Program builds on the commitment of the scientific community to ensure that appropriate granting decisions are made by NSERC following the recommendations from peer reviewers. NSERC expects every Canadian grantee to participate in the peer review process as a reviewer when requested. Although you may receive several requests of this type, we recognize the time contribution and effort that each review requires and it is not expected that you review more than three Discovery Grant applications per year. Please let us know as soon as possible, if you will be able to review this application. A simple response to this message will suffice.

Your agreement to review means that you understand and accept that we may contact you to request your expert review of other research proposals based on your area(s) of expertise as provided to NSERC, and your publications and research interests as found in public data sources.

In addition to being subject to federal laws and policies on personal information, NSERC has a duty to the research community to protect the integrity and confidentiality of its peer-review system. Your agreement to review also means that you will treat all NSERC documentation entrusted to you for this purpose in the strictest confidence and to manage it in accordance with the Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality Policy of the Federal Research Funding Organizations. NSERC also expects that you will not review an application if you believe you have a conflict of interest (refer to the Conflict of Interest and Confidentiality for Review Committee Members, External Reviewers, and Observers ). You will be asked to electronically agree to abide by the Policy through the secure site prior to commencing review of the application.

Participation in the NSERC peer review process is voluntary and your personal information will be retained in a database that is restricted to NSERC staff. Your information (name, affiliation, contact information, areas of expertise, language capabilities, information on the proposals where your review has been sought, and your availability to review) is protected in accordance with the Privacy Act and will only be shared with committee members.

If you do not wish to be considered as a potential external reviewer on NSERC grant applications, please let us know so that we can update our records.

The peer-review process depends on volunteers like you and we thank you in advance for your participation.

Best,

Lucie Maheux
Program Assistant | Adjointe de programmes
Engineering, Research Grants | Génie, Subventions de recherche
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada | Conseil de recherches en sciences naturelles et en génie du Canada
--
Lucie.Maheux@nserc-crsng.gc.ca
350 Albert Street, Ottawa ON K1A 1H5 | 350, rue Albert, Ottawa ON K1A 1H5
Telephone | Téléphone | 613-995-6375
www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca | www.crsng-nserc.gc.ca

My response, with great pleasure:

Dear Ms. Maheux,

I politely decline to review. I have made a conscious decision to not force taxpayers to pay for my research or the research of anyone else. I am funding my own research for the most part. Some of my research is industrially sponsored. I consider it against my morality to do it any other way.

Sincerely yours,
Prof. Jim Brenner


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 17
    Posted by Mamaemma 7 years, 4 months ago
    It's pretty amazing to see someone not only pay lip service to principles, but to actually stand by those principles in real life. I'm impressed as hell.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 7 years, 4 months ago
      Saying no to volunteer work is necessary if I am going to spend enough time on what I want to do.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by lrshultis 7 years, 4 months ago
        Was there a threat by the government if you had volunteered? I felt threatened about my future work when asked by the NSF and ACS to register in the early 1970s. I did not want the government possibly overseeing my work. I do not see that one would become an altruist by reviewing the work of others, though others might consider it altruism due to just being helpful and providing some time to the work. No worse than associations, conventions, and other chosen time wasters, though pier review is sometimes useful to weed out the absurd depending on whether politics will allow that. It is not always worth the time to review some climate papers since, for some, errors will never be corrected even after publication and complaints for years afterward. It is gratifying to get a rare thank you note for pointing out an error.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ 7 years, 4 months ago
          There was no threat in this case, and no means of enforcing it even if there had been a threat.

          Peer review of papers is OK if I plan to publish in that journal, but nowadays you get deluged with requests to review in journals that you will never submit to.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mminnick 7 years, 4 months ago
    Congratulations Dr. Brenner. View of the scientists I kow would have refused to review. Most, but not all have fallen into the NSF maze. Those that have fallen in spend 50+% of their time writing research proposals to get money to allow them to write more proposals.
    +1
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ProfChuck 7 years, 4 months ago
    The only real value science provides to politicians is political tools. To the extent that they even understand science they view it as a collection of weapons in a political arsenal that can be used to convince the voters and to be used against their adversaries. AGW is a good example of this. Global climate change is of far greater value to the politician as a weapon than its scientific authenticity. It does not need to be real it only needs to be believed. Organizations like the NSF exist to perpetrate science as a political tool, scientific understanding is secondary to this objective.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 7 years, 4 months ago
    I didn't know that "Peer Review" was tax payer funded or that there was a central agency involved.

    I always thought free market Mags and publications did that within the scientific community.
    Learn somthin new every day.

    I am proud to know a person that stands by his principles.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 7 years, 4 months ago
    Would you propose a better model for peer review?

    Until a couple of weeks ago, I was a heavy reader of RETRACTION WATCH. They cited this: Improving the Peer Review Process: A Proposed Market System by Paul Frijters and Benno Torgler.
    Here:
    http://ftp.iza.org/dp9894.pdf

    Not to guild the lilly but it is not necessarily altruism to ask for volunteers. It is when you demand them as a right. Similarly, you can volunteer on your own to what you want with your time. Mentoring juniors and reviewing the works of your peers could be part of that. But the choice is always yours.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 7 years, 4 months ago
      It would be altruism if I were to voluntarily do the peer review. Their peer review process in Canada requires them to serve on up to 3 reviews per year if they are submitting proposals. I have been asked to serve on NSF review panels, and the review panel process is a reasonable one if you are going to nuzzle up to the feeding trough.

      I see no problem in reviewing papers for journals, because I want to publish in those journals.

      But asking for volunteers from other countries to read proposals?!
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo