tag:blog.phds.org,2008:/2007/8/13/america-competes-act/comments Mephisto Noh-Varr 2007-08-15T16:42:47Z Geoff Davis tag:blog.phds.org,2007-08-13:735:765 2007-08-15T16:42:45Z 2007-08-15T16:42:45Z <p>I assume you are referring just to the postdoc mentoring and scientific communications provisions. I'm not sure how much good the communications provision will do, but I think the mentoring provision is valuable. Here's why:</p> <p>First, the broad impacts information is used in deciding whether a grant gets funded or not (though I doubt it has very much weight), so people will need to tell a good story. Having a postdoc office at the institution provides an easy out for PIs - they can just write something about the things the office will do for the postdoc. If offices are smart, they'll distribute boilerplate text that can be used for just such a purpose. That in turn I think will generate support (or at least grudging tolerance) within institutions for postdoc offices, which are by no means universal. I think it will speed creation of such offices.</p> <p>Second, it makes an explicit statement that mentoring is an expected part of the postdoc experience. That's a small step towards formalization and professionalization of the postdoc. Ultimately, I think the postdoc will evolve toward a grad-school-like structure. There will be different levels of structure, of course, and different milestones and expected tasks, but still clear goals and steps towards those goals. I think it's a good direction to be heading in.</p> JS tag:blog.phds.org,2007-08-13:735:764 2007-08-15T14:33:22Z 2007-08-15T14:33:22Z <p>NIH training fellowships have always included things like that -- remember the "scientific ethics" craze of the mid 90's? There's no accountability or specific requirements and programs might (or might not) hold a two hour group program once a year. I'd be astonished if these provisions have any practical effect at all, except maybe getting grad students a few more free pizzas.</p>