Category: Working hypotheses

6. Thesis: Precarious working conditions compromise the quality of research and waste public funds and resources.

Post author By rs_admin
Post date 2022-02-20

Explanation:

Taxpayers’ money often funds scientific work and is not used efficiently due to the working conditions in the science system. Biomedical research alone receives up to $240 billion annually worldwide. Of this investment, an estimated 85 percent is wasted. The reason for this can be results that are not reproducible or cannot be used further. The pressure to publish additionally promotes the compulsion to work regularly on projects that can be publicized as quickly as possible. Due to the aforementioned conditions, there is a lack of time and appreciation to work out new ideas. This problem, which can be crudely described as “research waste”, is thus further fueled and taxpayers’ money is used up.

Science cannot afford to waste funds, labor and material resources. Research with no real added value wastes important resources and public money. Results that are not repeatable lead to a stagnant state of knowledge and can jeopardize research that builds on it. Scientific results and their subsequent benefits to society cannot be predicted. Knowledge gain for society should be in the foreground. To this end, new features must be created to promote careers.

Working hypotheses

5. Thesis: Precarious working conditions prevent science communication. Because many citizens lack an understanding of science, it plays too small a role in political processes.

Post author By rs_admin
Post date 2022-02-20

Explanation:

Science communication enables the sharing of scientific knowledge between scientists and society. Citizens need access to the current state of knowledge in research in order to participate in political processes and opinion building. An understanding of science protects against pseudoscience and strengthens the public’s trust in scientific processes. In addition, the population contributes to the generation of knowledge through tax money and thus acquires the right to be informed about the current state of knowledge. Scientists should have the opportunity to exercise science communication. For this, the necessary framework conditions, also in the form of recognition, must be in place. Science communication is currently a luxury that can only be realized by a few. Good communication on complex topics requires time and financial resources: both are lacking in everyday science life. Science communication is not incentivized because it does not advance careers. Science communication must be given a career-enhancing status alongside publications and must be supported.

Working hypotheses

4. Thesis: Precarious working conditions are reinforced by problematic evaluation structures and false incentives in the system.

Post author By rs_admin
Post date 2022-02-20

Explanation:

A career in academic research is a constant comparison of forces, fueled by the Wissenschaftszeitvertragsgesetz. If the decisive criterion for new hires is the number of publications, this tempts people to work hastily or carelessly – a phenomenon that is frequently observed. After all, “If you want to be successful in science, you have to publish a lot. The result [can be] half-baked results, unrepeatable experiments, pseudo-journals.” This problem in the scientific career process is described as publication pressure. The short form “publish or perish” sums up the extent of the problem. Those who do not publish do not participate in the race for permanent positions and thus become invisible to the system. Assessment structures emphasize quantity over quality, so that the trustworthiness of research results is compromised. This type of evaluation diminishes the scientific and social added value of the work done. An additional consequence is the flood of literature: It becomes more difficult to sift through publications and to classify them in the current state of knowledge.

Working hypotheses

3. Thesis: Precarious working conditions prevent excellent academic education and training. They also do not create incentives for good teaching or supervision of students.

Post author By rs_admin
Post date 2022-02-20

Explanation:

Supporting scientists in early career phases is an essential part of scientific work. Incentives for good teaching are therefore necessary. The general conditions are an obstacle to this: Hierarchies stand in the way of optimal supervision. Supervisors and professors often have to oversee many doctorates at the same time, each requiring a great deal of time. PhD students and postdocs are indispensable for the implementation of teaching assignments in addition to their career-relevant research. Temporary part-time positions are the norm, although the workload resulting from these commitments can only be managed with overtime. PhDs and postdocs accumulate an average of 10 to 13 hours of overtime per week, BuWiN 2021 found, but additional hours worked are not compensated and often cannot be compensated elsewhere. Scientists in early career phases increasingly report psychological stress. Those affected drop out of their doctoral studies due to the heavy workload or are forced to disregard the rules of good scientific practice as a result. The quality of teaching has a low priority compared to publications or the procurement of research funds. As a result, there is a lack of incentives for good teaching and the quality of supervision of doctoral candidates and students is jeopardized – a vicious circle.

Working hypotheses

2. Thesis: Precarious working conditions endanger the quality of scientific work.

Post author By rs_admin
Post date 2022-02-20

Explanation

The science system is characterized by high performance expectations and great competition. The Federal Report for Young Scientists (BuWiN) 2021 documents that 92 percent of full-time staff at universities are employed on a temporary basis. Professors and persons over 45 years of age were excluded from this figure. The employees are deprived of future prospects and job security by fixed-term contracts: They are in constant competition. In addition, there are unmanageable working hours and thus massive overtime, which is often neither remunerated nor recorded despite legal obligations. These working conditions are stressful, overburdening and, among other things, interfere with family planning.

The Code of Good Scientific Practice, which was adopted by the German Research Foundation (DFG) in August 2019, addresses many of the problems mentioned. It attempts to provide a basis for changing them in DFG-funded projects. However, institutions often lack the conditions to comply with and monitor said measures across the board. Universities and chairs benefit from a low-cost and at the same time motivated workforce. Due to its hierarchical structures, the science system offers room for abuse of power. Management should be obliged to create conditions that promote healthy employment, fair working conditions and thus also high-quality science. Movements from affected groups such as “Ich bin Hanna” already point to parts of the problem and call for sustainable changes.

Working hypotheses

1. Thesis: Science is a cornerstone of our society. It must be promoted for the sake of progress and in the interest of the population/society.

Post author By rs_admin
Post date 2022-02-20

Explanation:

The sciences consist of an interplay between the acquisition of knowledge and the critical examination of results. They are the basis for progress in society as a whole and are needed to overcome crises. The current problems therefore require social change and technological solutions. For this, existing grievances must be comprehensible to citizens in order to be able to initiate effective changes. By making data available, they have the opportunity to inform themselves and to understand larger contexts. All citizens of our society benefit from the knowledge gained through the work of scientists. In science, relevant recommendations and strategies are derived from data to solve problems. In the scientific system, therefore, principles apply to the generation of valid and reliable knowledge. The quality of scientific practice is to be ensured by applicable subject-specific standards. However, employees in the science system find themselves in a field of tension due to conflicting demands. On the one hand, there are poor working conditions and the pressure to perform and publish, while on the other hand, there is the obligation to produce good scientific work. These high demands make it difficult to strictly adhere to good scientific practice and thus harm science as a whole.