Here is an interesting and radical proposal to think about:
End the University as We Know It
I am not wild about the idea of abolishing tenure (after all there is no evidence that human nature has changed so much that we dont need to be concerned about politicians firing professors who dig up information they do not like) but I do like the idea of increasing collaborations between departments to create interdisciplinary teams that focus on societally important issues like water and, importantly, disease.
It’s a stimulating article, but a bit woolly, I think. Craig provided his take at his Nature Network blog the other day, if you’re interested to take a look at his perspective.
I just saw this post by Female Science Professor – who did not like it much, or at least, recognise much in it.
Hi Pam. . I am cross-posting.
Maxine – Thanks for the link to FSP and Pam’s post ( I will cross-post this comment). I don’t agree with FSP. I had the pleasure of being in two very different science departments for graduate education. I was in a Department of Biology and then a Department of Pharmacology/Toxicolgy (Biomedical Research and therefore more aligned with the hospital). While in the Bio department we shared floors with the physics and psychology graduate departments. These groups, as well as Bio, had very different graduate experiences then those of the Bio-med disciplines (i.e. MCB, Pathology, Pharm/Tox, etc.). Even within the Sciences there are so many differences of Graduate training and I think they could all benefit from some transformation and re-alignment. I still think that tenure should be up for some revamping – provided there is good governance and oversight to protect the faculty.
I am in agreement with Craig. It may be that we are both in biology where there are not only clear advantages for restructuring but the knowledge base is increasing extremely fast. For example, I work on infectious diseases of plants. The molecular mechanisms are very similar for plants and animals. Increasingly scientists are cross-referencing each others papers. An ideal program on infectious disease, in my view, would include research on the molecular biology, epidemiology etc of infectious disease of both plants and animals. It would also include historians that study the spread of disease and sociologists who study responses through history as well as clinicians and policy makers that develop optimal methods of control and public communication. Think how useful that would be this week with the outbreak of swine flu. It would be exciting for graduate students and provide them with broad training for a future career. Such and integrated knowledge base would also be societally relevant- death prevention.
Hi Pam. . .
I love the idea of including Historians and likely philosophers, ethicists and theoretical biologists in the mix. All of these disciplines can provide added context to the problems being studied.
It would be so interesting to be in such a department. We would learn tremendously from each other and, I think, influence the direction of our research programs. If you can work on equally interesting problems, x or Y, but Y has the added twist that it has the potential for saving lives or helping preserve the environment, I think most would go for Y