quinta-feira, 23 de outubro de 2014

WORMS CONTRA-ATACA

JC Worms, funcionário da ESF que ameaçou a investigadora Amaya Moro-Martin, escreveu uma carta para a Nature em que: 1) Se mostra CONTRA os cortes na investigação em Portugal (ver título) e 2) Retrata os investigadores portugueses como trogloditas que não sabem o que é a avaliação pelos pares.

8 comentários:

  1. Peço desculpa, mas não posso concordar com a interpretação do Dr. David Marçal da carta acima.

    O que é que aconteceu a este blog?

    ResponderEliminar
  2. Ganda blogue! Ganda texto! Parabéns!

    Abç

    ... e não sou "anónimo", sei assinar o meu nome

    ResponderEliminar
    Respostas
    1. Antunes, não seja humilde, sabe assinar o seu nome todo!

      Eliminar
  3. Por acaso leio a Nature e vi esta carta. Devo confessar que acho o terceiro parágrafo altamente âmbiguo. Quem são as "interferências"? Apesar da ESF não ser isenta de culpas, o que me parece é que esta é saco de pancada entre a ideologia a impor (Governo e FCT) e o status quo (os barões da academia portuguesa, sedentos de manter a sua vida, p.ex. férias pagas pelos projectos FCT). É preciso dizer quem são essas interferências: a FCT e as suas quotas e afins, ou os barões e o lobbying pelo "seu instituto" (são tão nobres de espírito...)

    ResponderEliminar
    Respostas
    1. If I understand you correctly (the last part of your text comes out a bit strange in google translate, but I guess you might be using idiomatic expressions), and if you honestly do not know what is happening, maybe I can enlighten you here.

      If you are a scientist, you will know that high-level European scientists in a specific area do not form such a wildly disconnected community. That means that chances are you will know someone or know someone who will know someone in the panel. And people will talk - particularly after the legal threat issued by Worms to Moro-Martin.

      What you might not be aware of is that not all panel members had been briefed by ESF on the real purpose and consequences of this evaluation. One thing is to say that you are to pick half of the projects (yes, I am afraid that this evaluation was sold as an evaluation of projects to at least some panel members); quite another is to learn at some point in the process that you are, in fact, deciding on whether or not a given research group should have virtually all of its funding cut out. This actually infuriated some panel members, not to mention that you cannot expect everyone to agree with this type of policies.

      As you can imagine, none of this painted a very flattering image of the people running Portuguese science either, which did not go down well particularly at a moment when a Portuguese from the same political family is taking up the position of European commissioner for science and innovation.

      Of course I cannot really know if this is what Swift/Worms are referring to; I am just relying on my personal experience about which, for obvious reasons, I cannot give you more details. But my interpretation is that ESF considers informing panel members of what they really are up to to be an interference...

      I hope this helps.

      Eliminar
    2. Yes, I'm aware of all of that. But the ambiguity lingers: which pressure is ESF referring to? The pressure from FCT and Portuguese government (in the case of quotas, for example) or the pressure of Portuguese scientists (either ethics paladins or self-interested lobbyists, you name it). My impression is that the ambiguity may be on purpose...

      Eliminar
  4. Eu sou anónimo e sei assinar o meu nome.

    ResponderEliminar
  5. Since it seems that Nature has blocked comments on the Swift-Worms letter after a first comment was posted (at least I cannot find a way to post them), I will leave my comment here:

    By "intimidating communications" do Swift-Worms mean sending private e-mails to individual members of the panel threatening them with legal action if they did not retract the unsubstantiated classification of their unit? If that is so, this is indeed appalling behaviour.

    ResponderEliminar

1) Identifique-se com o seu verdadeiro nome.
2) Seja respeitoso e cordial, ainda que crítico. Argumente e pense com profundidade e seriedade e não como quem "manda bocas".
3) São bem-vindas objecções, correcções factuais, contra-exemplos e discordâncias.