24 Matching Annotations
  1. Mar 2018
  2. Mar 2016
    1. But there’s, I think there is a question of how you interpret the data, even ... ifthe experiments are very well designed. And, in terms of advice—not that I’mgoing to say that it’s shocking—but one of my mentors, whom I very muchrespect as a scientist—I think he’s extraordinarily good—advised me to alwaysput the most positive spin you can on your data. And if you try to present, like,present your data objectively, like in a job seminar, you’re guaranteed tonotgetthe job

      Importance of "spinning" data

    2. You are. And you know what the problems are in doing the experiments. And ifyou, in your mind, think that there should be one more control—because youknow this stuff better than anybody else because you’re doing it, you know—you decided not to do that, not to bring up what the potential difficulties are, youhave a better chance of getting that paper published. But it’s—I don’t think it’sthe right thing to do.

      deliberate positive bias

    3. dishonesty occursmore with the postdoc. Because they want to get the data—whereas if they don’tpublish, they don’t move on. And they, I think, are more likely to sort of fudge alittle bit here and there if they need to get the data done. Unless, like you say, youwatch them.

      senior faculty over-estimate the likelihood of juniors committing misconduct.

    4. One mid-career scientist told a story of how he and others in his lab counteractedan abuse of power by his mentor, a senior scientist, while he was in training. Hismentor received a manuscript to review that was authored by a ‘‘quasi-competitor.’’It presented results of experiments similar to those that were going on in thementor’s lab. The scientist continued, ‘‘That paper ... basically would have beat usto the punch. They would have published these results before us, and they wouldhave gotten credit, and not us. And my mentor, God bless him, sat on the paper.’’The mentor not only delayed writing the review but asked someone working in thelab to write it (a move of questionable ethicality in itself). That lab person and ourrespondent decided, in response, to stall their own work, so that their lab would nothave an unfair advantage over the group who submitted the paper for review. In theend, the original group got credit for the findings, while the respondent’s lab wasalso able to publish their slightly different findings. He ended his story with,‘‘Sometimes you’re in an awkward position, and you try to do the best thing you canunder the circumstances, within your own internal ethical clock or whatever. Andsometimes it’s ugly and it’s imperfect, but it’s the only thing you can do. If we hadgone to the mentor and voiced this objection, our careers would have been over. Ifwe had approached the journal—God forbid, forget it.’’ The speaker qualified thisstory by saying that it made him sound much more ethical than he actually is.

      peer review deliberately delayed in order to slow competitor

    5. The focus-group discussions showed, however, that scientists see peer review asaffording a unique, even protected opportunity for competitors to take advantage ofthem. In this sense, competition infects the peer review process, not only throughscientists’ competition with other applicants, but also through scientists’ distrust ofthe reviewers themselves, as competitors. The following exchange among mid-career discussants shows their sense of vulnerability

      Evidence that peer-reviewers are competitors.

    6. Richard B. Freeman and colleagues [28] havecharacterized the problem as follows: ‘‘Research in the biosciences fits a tournamenteconomic structure. A tournament offers participants the chance of winning a bigprize—an independent research career, tenure, a named chair, scientific renown,awards—through competition.... It fosters intense competition by amplifying smalldifferences in productivity into large differences in recognition and reward. Well-structured tournaments stimulate competition. Because the differences in rewardsexceed the differences in output, there is a disproportionate incentive to ‘win’’’(p.2293). Research environments in which only small numbers of scientists have theopportunity to gain significant attention increase the competitive stakes: playing thegame may be a gamble, but the payoff for winning is significant [28,36]

      The tournament structure of biosciences.

    7. Another perspective sees competition as a function not just of funding, but of thebalance between supply and demand of resources, particularly human resources. Inthe current competitive system, young scientists are pitted against one another forattractive career opportunities that are becoming increasingly scarce [28].Researchers, feeling the pressure to be first to present findings in their fields,employ armies of graduate students and postdoctoral fellows and strive to maketheir laboratory groups the smartest and the fastest. The result is a ‘‘postdocbottleneck’’ [29] where the supply for highly educated and trained researchers farexceeds the demand [30–33]. In concrete terms, Donald Kennedy and colleagues[34] have described the structural problem as a source of excess supply of humancapital: ‘‘We’ve arranged to produce more knowledge workers than we can employ,creating a labor-excess economy that keeps labor costs down and productivity high’’(p. 1105). The system produces, they claim, a ‘‘legion of the discontented’’ [34].They argue that institutional and policy decisions about training scientists should becoupled to placement histories of recent graduates, numbers of intellectual offspringof faculty, and job markets for scientists. Roger L. Geiger [35] has suggested thatthe imbalance between supply and demand is due in part to deficiencies in graduate

      Role of lack of positions. Interestingly, this has been shown by Fang et al to be not reflected in misconduct stats: i.e. the vast majority of scientific fraud is conducted by senior (male) scientists, not job hungry post-docs or grad students.

    8. Analysts differ as to the reasons why competition has intensified. Some see thesituation in terms of money. Tempering the effects of competition is not a primeimpetus behind calls by the National Science Board [26] and by a recent coalition of140 college presidents and other leaders [27] for more federal funding for scientificresearch; however, some scientists see such advocacy movements in terms of easingcertain aspects of competition that are worsened by tight dollars. More money, morepositions, and overall expansion of the research enterprise would improve thesituation

      role of funding

    9. here are indications, however, that the natureof competition has changed in recent years. Goodstein [25] argues that this shift islinked to negative outcomes:Throughout most of its history, science was constrained only by the limits ofits participants’ imagination and creativity. In the past few decades, however,that state of affairs has changed dramatically. Science is now held back mainlyby the number of research posts and the amount of research funds available.What had been a purely intellectual competition has become an intensestruggle for scarce resources. In the long run, this change, which is permanentand irreversible, will probably have an undesirable effect on ethical behavioramong scientists. Instances of scientific fraud will almost surely become morecommon, as will other forms of scientific misconduct (p. 31)

      relationship of negative aspects of competition to change in funding model that promotes scarcity. See Goodstein, D. (2002). Scientific misconduct.Academe, 88, 28–31

    10. It is negatively correlated with subscription tonormative systems (either traditional or alternative) and sense of community

      Scientific competition is is negatively correlated to eithical systems and sense of community.

    11. Melissa S.Anderson [20] furthermore found that a competitive departmental environment inscience is positively correlated with exposure to misconduct, fears of retaliation forwhistle-blowing, and conflic

      More evidence of correlation between competition and "exposure to misconduct".

    12. Empirical findings show a strong, positive relationship between the level ofperceived competition in an academic department and the likelihood that depart-mental members will observe misconduct among their colleagues [19]

      Higher the level of perceived competition in academic departments, the greater the liklihood that people will see misconduct among peers.

    13. Because science is a cumulative, interconnected, andcompetitive enterprise, with tensions among the various societies in which researchis conducted, now more than ever researchers must balance collaboration andcollegiality with competition and secrecy

      Institute of medicine's call to balance cooperativeness vs. collaboration.

  3. Feb 2016
    1. Work/Life Integrity

      Definition: Work so that it produces value that is important to you in the world. Live your life (family & personal lifestyle) in a way that is consistent with the values that are important to you.

  4. Jan 2016
  5. christmind.info christmind.info
    1. How do you eat dinner from your Center? How do you play Pictionary from your Center? How do you hug someone from your Center? How do you observe the scenery from your Center? I am not going to answer that. I am going to say, explore doing it! And explore doing it on purpose, just as much as you engage in Workshops and private conversations from your Center on purpose. And remember, because this is the key point for you at this time, that in doing it, you will experience the integrity, the congruence, the Peace of your Being which is fulfilling, and will constitute an experience of Self—minus fear, minus the sense of incompetence, minus all the characteristics of the sidekick.

      The importance of practice in every day life and Raj suggests that this is what builds "the integrity, the congruence, the Peace of your Being which is fulfilling, and will constitute an experience of Self."

    2. If you will pay attention, and if you will accept the fact that the experience of fulfillment you are having is an experience of congruence with your Self, you will realize that the integrity of it hasn’t been derived from me and not from you. And because it constitutes a real experience of You, there is even less reason for you to release it at the end of the last conversation [of the day] as though now all there is left is you—meaning the sidekick.

      The sense of fulfilment IS an experience of congruence of Self!

    3. It is only the experience of Integrity, which you have when you are Knowing, that will promote the willing release of any desire to shift back to ignorance, to shift back to fear. You see, just because something is familiar does not mean it is actually desirable. It may feel comfortable, but it does not feel fulfilling, because it does not embrace fulfillment. It is not an experience of congruence or unity. That which is familiar does not provide peace—the Peace of your Being. And when you are feeling the Peace of your Being, as you are right now, it is obvious to you that the familiar does not include this experience.
    4. Now, it is important for you and I to speak regularly, as we are doing, because just as meditating reminds you of the experience of centeredness, our conversing reminds you of the nature of the experience of Knowing, which provides you with the clear perspective of the pleasure of It, the Integrity of It, the naturalness of It, and the fact that in the experience of It there is no loss of any experience of Self, including, as I said, identity and identification—what might be called mind and body. The experience of It does not convey or substantiate the sidekick, the sidekick’s judgments, or the sidekick’s sense of separation. You must be reminded of this because it helps to substantiate to you the desirability of not being fragmented, the desirability of not experiencing fear, the desirability of not being “bumbling,” the desirability of not experiencing incompetence, the desirability of releasing the sidekick.

      Raj speak about the importance of being reminded of what is real.

    5. You see, you are still listening to me, aren’t you? You are still conceptualizing what is happening as though you are listening to me, and you are eager. This is wonderful, because it simply means that full permission is being given. But, I will remind you that it is your Self which you are listening to, and it is an experience of Integrity. It is an experience of You, and truly not something separate from you, because I am not a person. I am the Voice for Truth. And there are not many voices for Truth, there is just the Voice for Truth. And you are the Voice for Truth—the utterly same Voice for Truth. When you listen to me, you listen to You. And when you listen to You, you listen to me. But what you must come to embrace and embody as your conscious awareness is the fact that it is You; that every word which is being experienced at this moment is You in the act of being Who You truly Are. Where is the imaginary sidekick, Bumbling Paul, at this moment? Nowhere! Never was anywhere. So, conceptually speaking, you could say that you will either be talking with me/Yourself or opening your mouth and saying what me/Yourself is being the Knowing of. You are at a point where you truly can release the idea that an experience or sense of authorship will accompany true Being, and just be the experience, the presence of It happening!

      Channelling......."I will remind you that it is your Self which you are listening to, and it is an experience of Integrity."

      "I am the Voice for Truth." and he goes on to say that there is only one Voice for Truth and our Being is that!

      And he shares there is no sense of authorship in true Being.....

    1. Again I am going to reiterate: Avoid thinking! If you want to have the stimulation of insight, don’t think. Listen! And listen to me. Then the amplifications which you expect to arrive at through thinking, but will not, will be present in the nature of the dialogue, the connection. Then the specifics that you would hope to arrive at through thinking will come as Knowing, and further substantiate the shift of weight of emphasis of attention to you, and thus disengage you further from the distorted self-perception that you have thought was really you. Again: If you want to understand, don’t think. Listen. Dialogue. Actively speak with me. Actively be with me. This is another way of saying, actively let me in, because to the degree that you let me in, you let yourself into your right Mind, and your full Sanity, and your full embrace of what is Really going on—Reality, the Kingdom of Heaven, the Movement of Creation, the experience of unity, integrity.

      "Don't think, communicate with inner guidance,LISTEN, in this way Real Knowing can occur as it cannot come from the thinking mind.

    1. I am now viewing the "Workman's Sandwich" and wondering what it would take humankind to provide the WorkWOMAN's Sandwich... Ladies on the job deserve just as much roast beef as any male laborer. If I may, I'd like to propose an ideal sandwich: it would include the contents of; Cheese churned from the breast milk of strong, independent mothers, Turkey of the female farmer's land, and mustard from a female CEO-owned grocery store on Wall Street.

  6. Nov 2015
    1. RAJ: I know you feel like you need help, but no one can help you at this point. There is no other One but You, and you had better be sure that you have no other “ones” before You, You Self, God. Your entire Being, in all Its infinitude, is harmonizing with You, loving You, and supporting You because of the Integrity of your Being. No one but You can relinquish consciously your hold on the false sense of self—the misidentification which feels it can’t do it. At this point I want to terminate the conversation. I will be instantly available if you need to talk, but I want you to be consciously and quietly alone with your own Being and the Reality of things. This is your baby!

      This is my journey to take, no one can do it for me.... I need to remember my True Identity and let go of all of my perceptions...

      To BE alone with my Being, Reality. Trusting my Being in all of its infinitude because it is harmonising, loving and supporting me...

    1. There is only one infinite Life/Principle, one infinite Identity, infinitely expressed and seen as all that exists. It is what constitutes the center and circumference of Being—Your Self as you experience It, Susan’s Self as she experiences It, and my Self as I experience It. Its omnipotence or strength is constituted of Its absolute omnipresent Integrity, which is Its Intelligent Nature. it is not thrilling or exciting when contemplated from an egotistical standpoint. But It is satisfying in ways that are so meaningful that they cannot compare to the “thrills” of the ego. It also has this benefit: The satisfaction is eternal and unchanging.

      In our Being there is far greater meaningful satisfaction than any ego thrill or fix.