Hello Terry, I am not going to continue this back and forth without objective or further generalisations. We have shown solidarity as individuals and as a community, many of our countries have made bold statements and are showing support (see for example this French senator’s speech https://youtu.be/wmDVrV7QRrU and this call by the French Minister for Higher Education and Research to welcome US researchers in France, written up in Le Monde: https://www.lemonde.fr/en/united-states/article/2025/03/09/french-research-groups-urged-to-welcome-scientists-fleeing-us_6738976_133.html). While we are not ignoring the US situation, we are also not the community who elected them into power and have a true voice in affecting the situation. The anti-science movement is a strongly US issue (with its creep into other countries being more or less constrained by a general respect for knowledge), and much like funding, is founded on where the local society decides to put its money and resources. Like your cited Dr. Ardem Patapoutian, my career also spans various countries and I am surely the better for it. What would interest me here actually (and maybe others) who are outside the US, is to know how the current actions are actually affecting “our” research fields in the US. I know of colleagues who have lost whole NEA grant calls, affecting historical acoustic research projects, as Arts and Humanities are easy targets. Are there major cuts to research at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center and the U.S. Army Institute of Public Health directly affecting you or colleagues, and if so how are they presented? Thematic (DEI) or brute cost cutting (DOGE)? Do you see going abroad as a solution for researchers being impacted? Another 2-cents… -- Brian FG Katz, Research Director, CNRS Groupe Lutheries - Acoustique – Musique Sorbonne Université, CNRS, UMR 7190, Institut Jean Le Rond ∂'Alembert http://www.dalembert.upmc.fr/home/katz De : AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception <AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> De la part de T. T. Perry
Envoyé : samedi 12 avril 2025 19:25
À : AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Objet : Re: [AUDITORY] Quality of discourse [was: Silence from leaders in auditory science] Thank you for addressing my question so directly. I ask questions when I don't know the answer, and now I have a clearer understanding of what motivates beliefs about Auditory List and why some object to discussion of anti-science attacks by politicians and ideological movements, like anti-vaxxers. To summarize my understanding from reading your emails, it seems that some view such discussion as irrelevant to auditory science due to differences in geography, power, and/or interest among List subscribers. I am left contemplating the way these same differences are ignored when it comes to other topics on the List, but at least the reasons have been enumerated. I personally do not agree with foreclosing the possibility of transnational solidarity among scientists in advance, and in fact because American scientists largely ignored what was happening in Hungary, American scientists now find themselves facing a similar fight at home, unprepared. I'd also like to acknowledge that the threat and scope of the anti-science movement is qualitatively different from debates about relative funding level differences between labs in France, and makes for a poor point of comparison. I have no more questions to ask, as the picture is now clear to me as to why things are the way they are and how we got here. I will instead leave the list with two bits of reading. One is a CNN editorial by Nobel Laureate Dr. Ardem Patapoutian, who points out that his scientific career crosses nation-state boundaries, complicating simple narratives about what's "local" and what's "global" (and highlighting how borders can be weaponized against science, something that will always be invisible in a balkanized framework of scientific collaboration). He says, " These actions against science are indiscriminate and risk doing real, long-lasting harm," and " Now is the time for all of us to speak up" https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/09/health/nobel-laureate-research-funding-patapoutian/index.html I also want to share the advice of Christina Pagel, professor of operational research: "Those of us in the rest of the world also face choices, and history will judge us too on what we decide. First, we must support our US colleagues and their institutions." https://www.bmj.com/content/387/bmj.q2654 Clearly not everyone in academia shares the same narrow vision of what constitutes mutual interest and solidarity between scientists. Dear Doug, Thank you for your remark. To further the point, please let me indulge you all in one last comment. While the notion of “publish or perish” is of conceptual concern, I would not consider it the principle concern here in France. Unlike the US, UK, and some other countries, I am quite pleased that France has not embraced the strict quantification of publications (journal impact, h-index, etc.) in career evaluations. Of much more significant importance in France on early career researchers (in my opinion) is the severe limitation on consecutive post-doc/non-tenured contracts due to French employment law, resulting in many motivated candidates being forced out of French public research/university and either into the private sector or abroad if they do not get a position quickly. The general policy of also not recruiting from within (not able to get a tenured position where you completed your earlier works) means a severe lack of continuity in the knowledge/skill base within a team of small size, while large teams are more robust (i.e. favouring the well-established at the detriment of those emerging). Of course, these policies and a discussion around them is of little direct relevance to those outside of France. This is not to start an open discussion on who has it harder, but simply to reiterate that much of what we may be frustrated with in our careers, outside of scientific questions, is still more often than not a *local* issue, and not necessarily of relevance to an international disciple discussion. My 2-cents more. -Brian -- Brian FG Katz, Research Director, CNRS Groupe Lutheries - Acoustique – Musique Sorbonne Université, CNRS, UMR 7190, Institut Jean Le Rond ∂'Alembert http://www.dalembert.upmc.fr/home/katz De : AUDITORY - Research in Auditory Perception <AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> De la part de Douglas Scott
Envoyé : vendredi 11 avril 2025 05:08
À : AUDITORY@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Objet : Re: [AUDITORY] Quality of discourse [was: Silence from leaders in auditory science] Hi Brian
Thanks for this excellent post. It mirrors my sentiments very closely.
For what it's worth, the abysmal plight of early career researchers and continued tacit institutional endorsement of publish or perish culture are much more pressing concerns if politics absolutely have to be discussed. Dear all (who are still members of this list), I would like to say a few words, which are something of a paraphrasing of things said in previous threads over the years for the same reason. This email list is an international community in auditory science in the largest sense of the term. While there are events and questions of national/regional interest that occur around the world, it behoves list members to remember that fact. While the situation in the USA at present is “difficult” (understatement), and those not in the USA feel empathy for our colleagues, and may have certain stronger feels toward the political decisions being made, they nevertheless remain political decisions for which the international community are but observers, without a vote. I, for example, would not bring to this list a discussion on issues currently being debated in France where large amounts of national funding would be reserved for specific allocation to “keylabs”, that is labs which are designated as the most funded, most prolific (i.e. give those with money more money because they are doing something “right”), something which puts all other researchers in the field at a disadvantage. It is a fight we are having, but this list is not the forum, despite the numerous French researchers on the list, other than to inform list members in other countries of how things are evolving elsewhere. Several mentions have already been made of opportunities open to welcome researchers in other countries, to help those who are so adventurous as to leave the USA. This is a clear action by those countries and senior scientists in response to the situation within their power, far from silence. International participation in the “Stand Up for Science” movement in strong support of our American based colleagues is another example of such empathy. I, myself, left the USA 25 years ago as there was little hope already at that time in obtaining funding in the areas of research that interested me. Mention has also been made of using better avenues for action and national related discussions. There are no doubt numerous national societies associated with various disciplines of list members where more directed discussions would seem more appropriate. So, in summary, the calls to “Move On” are not to disrespect the importance of the issue raised to those involved, but to highlight that this is probably not the audience for “local” political discussions, unless the intention is to alienate those from outside. And with that, I will end my 2-cents worth. -Brian -- Brian FG Katz, Research Director, CNRS Groupe Lutheries - Acoustique – Musique Sorbonne Université, CNRS, UMR 7190, Institut Jean Le Rond ∂'Alembert http://www.dalembert.upmc.fr/home/katz
|