4 ms·

I thought it would be this way too. But I do actually try to help out with funding as much as I can. Ultimately, though, I'm afraid I can't summon too much sym

by xaa 9y ago

I thought it would be this way too. But I do actually try to help out with funding as much as I can. Ultimately, though, I'm afraid I can't summon too much sympathy for a PI who thinks this way, because they knew exactly what they were getting into when they accepted that promotion. It is common knowledge that the tradeoff you make upon becoming PI is that you get the authority to direct the research aims while sacrificing the ability to do them yourself. Exaggerating somewhat, a PI gets 100% of the intellectual freedom and responsibility, and has 0% of the fun. A grad student or postdoc gets 0% and 100%. I was looking for something like 50%/50%.

Fomite 9y ago
That is indeed the tradeoff - but the problem is your exaggerated example masks the actual problem. Right now, rather than being at 100/0, I'm actually at something like 100/50. Hiring a staff scientist will send me towards 100/0. Which means not only do I have to think "Can I afford you?" but "Do I want to afford you?"
- xaa 9y ago
  Hmm, I can see how you got there, but I don't think it has worked out that way in my case. The amount of time you have to spend writing grants is a function of: 1) how much money you are burning, 2) how much help do you have writing, and 3) how good is your science (better science will be more successful). No doubt I hurt on #1. But I think I help enough on #2 and #3 to compensate, and therefore I don't think my PI spends a net larger percentage of time writing with me than he would without me. Anecdotally, over my time with him, I think has been a slow decrease in the fraction of his time he spends writing.
  - Fomite 9y ago
    I think the issue is the cost of #1 is non-linear. I think there's a space where yes, your impact on #1 is probably offset by gains in #2 and #3. But there's also a space, where I'm at right now (and I suspect many new investigators are) where your impact on #1 either moves a staff scientist outside the realm of possibility, or simply dramatically increases the likelihood of stochastic funding failure unless you're literally god's gift to the research world.

by xaa 9y ago

Fomite 9y ago

That is indeed the tradeoff - but the problem is your exaggerated example masks the actual problem. Right now, rather than being at 100/0, I'm actually at something like 100/50. Hiring a staff scientist will send me towards 100/0. Which means not only do I have to think "Can I afford you?" but "Do I want to afford you?"

xaa 9y ago
Hmm, I can see how you got there, but I don't think it has worked out that way in my case. The amount of time you have to spend writing grants is a function of: 1) how much money you are burning, 2) how much help do you have writing, and 3) how good is your science (better science will be more successful). No doubt I hurt on #1. But I think I help enough on #2 and #3 to compensate, and therefore I don't think my PI spends a net larger percentage of time writing with me than he would without me. Anecdotally, over my time with him, I think has been a slow decrease in the fraction of his time he spends writing.
- Fomite 9y ago
  I think the issue is the cost of #1 is non-linear. I think there's a space where yes, your impact on #1 is probably offset by gains in #2 and #3. But there's also a space, where I'm at right now (and I suspect many new investigators are) where your impact on #1 either moves a staff scientist outside the realm of possibility, or simply dramatically increases the likelihood of stochastic funding failure unless you're literally god's gift to the research world.