有益的合作

Rich Jorgensen
{"title":"有益的合作","authors":"Rich Jorgensen","doi":"10.1105/tpc.107.191080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This is the season when many assistant professors in the U.S. are subjected to the vagaries of their universities’ promotion and tenure process. A common piece of advice that is given to job candidates and newly hired assistant professors is that it is important to work independently of other faculty so that one’s accomplishments can be measured easily without the complication caused by involving more established scientists, making the evaluation of individual contributions difficult. However, from the modern perspective that faculty scientists should do the best possible, cutting-edge science, this is arguably the worst possible advice a new faculty member could be given. Collaboration is fundamentally important in 21st century biology. ‘‘We are all biologists now’’ is a widely mentioned, but oft forgotten phrase when tenure decisions come around. This statement simply means that limiting one’s work to merely a subdiscipline is out of date. Plant scientists can no longer simply be molecular biologists, biochemists, cell biologists, ecologists, or geneticists. If we are to understand plants at the level of dynamic living systems shaped by evolution in the rich context of their interrelationships with other organisms, then we have to embrace all of these disciplines plus more, stretching to even more diverse fields, such as mathematics, physics, the computer and information sciences, and engineering. No longer can any of us isolate ourselves; rather, we must all embrace multidisciplinary biology as a core principle. The promotion and tenure process should require both the candidate and the committee to explicitly identify and evaluate individual contributions. It should be the duty and responsibility of all promotion and tenure committees to assess and recognize the nature and extent of collaborations and of individual contributions to collaborative research. In today’s world, clear evidence of significant contribution to successful and substantive collaboration should be expected of almost any candidate for promotion and tenure in the biological sciences; never should a candidate be penalized for engaging in collaborative work. In short, collaboration should be expected, not discouraged! It is often claimed that it is difficult to determine who did what when junior faculty collaborate with senior faculty. This is nothing more than an abdication of responsibility: any promotion and tenure committee should be able to assess a candidate’s accomplishments within the context of collaborative research, as is done all the time in fields such as physics, astronomy, and the computer and information sciences. There is no good excuse for not doing the same in biology. In point of fact, quite a few universities have already figured out a process to do this well in the biological sciences, and good, useful examples are available. Collaboration is the lifeblood of modern biology, and any biologist who doesn’t understand this should not be asked to serve on a promotion and tenure committee. Once one accepts the multidisciplinary nature of 21st century biology, it is just a short step to realizing that actually ‘‘we are all scientists now’’ and that the only way to solve the major questions of the day is to work together. Biologists can no longer operate independently of computer and information scientists, mathematicians, statisticians, and physicists. It is essential that we all work together as scientists to understand the physical and biological world in which we live. The only way this is going to work is by encouraging and rewarding collaboration, especially in our younger colleagues. The future of humankind requires that we collectively adopt the broadest possible perspective and act accordingly to decipher and understand the world in which we are privileged to live. Only in this way we will be able to successfully address the major challenges we face as climates change and ecosystems adapt, with us or without us.","PeriodicalId":22905,"journal":{"name":"The Plant Cell Online","volume":"8 1","pages":"2967 - 2967"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2007-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rewarding Collaboration\",\"authors\":\"Rich Jorgensen\",\"doi\":\"10.1105/tpc.107.191080\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This is the season when many assistant professors in the U.S. are subjected to the vagaries of their universities’ promotion and tenure process. A common piece of advice that is given to job candidates and newly hired assistant professors is that it is important to work independently of other faculty so that one’s accomplishments can be measured easily without the complication caused by involving more established scientists, making the evaluation of individual contributions difficult. However, from the modern perspective that faculty scientists should do the best possible, cutting-edge science, this is arguably the worst possible advice a new faculty member could be given. Collaboration is fundamentally important in 21st century biology. ‘‘We are all biologists now’’ is a widely mentioned, but oft forgotten phrase when tenure decisions come around. This statement simply means that limiting one’s work to merely a subdiscipline is out of date. Plant scientists can no longer simply be molecular biologists, biochemists, cell biologists, ecologists, or geneticists. If we are to understand plants at the level of dynamic living systems shaped by evolution in the rich context of their interrelationships with other organisms, then we have to embrace all of these disciplines plus more, stretching to even more diverse fields, such as mathematics, physics, the computer and information sciences, and engineering. No longer can any of us isolate ourselves; rather, we must all embrace multidisciplinary biology as a core principle. The promotion and tenure process should require both the candidate and the committee to explicitly identify and evaluate individual contributions. It should be the duty and responsibility of all promotion and tenure committees to assess and recognize the nature and extent of collaborations and of individual contributions to collaborative research. In today’s world, clear evidence of significant contribution to successful and substantive collaboration should be expected of almost any candidate for promotion and tenure in the biological sciences; never should a candidate be penalized for engaging in collaborative work. In short, collaboration should be expected, not discouraged! It is often claimed that it is difficult to determine who did what when junior faculty collaborate with senior faculty. This is nothing more than an abdication of responsibility: any promotion and tenure committee should be able to assess a candidate’s accomplishments within the context of collaborative research, as is done all the time in fields such as physics, astronomy, and the computer and information sciences. There is no good excuse for not doing the same in biology. In point of fact, quite a few universities have already figured out a process to do this well in the biological sciences, and good, useful examples are available. Collaboration is the lifeblood of modern biology, and any biologist who doesn’t understand this should not be asked to serve on a promotion and tenure committee. Once one accepts the multidisciplinary nature of 21st century biology, it is just a short step to realizing that actually ‘‘we are all scientists now’’ and that the only way to solve the major questions of the day is to work together. Biologists can no longer operate independently of computer and information scientists, mathematicians, statisticians, and physicists. It is essential that we all work together as scientists to understand the physical and biological world in which we live. The only way this is going to work is by encouraging and rewarding collaboration, especially in our younger colleagues. The future of humankind requires that we collectively adopt the broadest possible perspective and act accordingly to decipher and understand the world in which we are privileged to live. Only in this way we will be able to successfully address the major challenges we face as climates change and ecosystems adapt, with us or without us.\",\"PeriodicalId\":22905,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Plant Cell Online\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"2967 - 2967\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2007-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Plant Cell Online\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.107.191080\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Plant Cell Online","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.107.191080","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在美国,许多助理教授都会在这个季节受到大学晋升和终身教职过程中变幻莫测的影响。给求职者和新聘用的助理教授的一个常见建议是,独立于其他教员的工作很重要,这样才能很容易地衡量自己的成就,而不会像让更有声望的科学家参与进来那样造成复杂性,从而使个人贡献的评估变得困难。然而,从现代的角度来看,教师科学家应该做最好的、最尖端的科学,这可以说是新教师可能得到的最糟糕的建议。合作在21世纪的生物学中至关重要。“我们现在都是生物学家了”这句话被广泛提及,但在决定终身教职时却常常被遗忘。这句话的意思是,把一个人的工作仅仅局限于一个分支学科已经过时了。植物科学家不再仅仅是分子生物学家、生物化学家、细胞生物学家、生态学家或遗传学家。如果我们要在动态生命系统的层面上,在植物与其他生物相互关系的丰富背景下,理解由进化形成的植物,那么我们就必须涵盖所有这些学科以及更多学科,延伸到更多样化的领域,如数学、物理学、计算机和信息科学以及工程学。我们任何人都不能再孤立自己;相反,我们必须将多学科生物学作为核心原则。晋升和终身任职的过程应该要求候选人和委员会明确地确定和评估个人的贡献。评估和承认合作的性质和程度以及个人对合作研究的贡献应该是所有晋升和终身教职委员会的义务和责任。在当今世界,几乎任何生物科学领域的晋升和终身职位候选人都应该有对成功和实质性合作作出重大贡献的明确证据;应聘者不应该因为参与合作而被扣分。简而言之,应该期待合作,而不是阻止合作!人们常说,当初级教员和高级教员合作时,很难确定谁做了什么。这只不过是推卸责任:任何晋升和终身教职委员会都应该能够在合作研究的背景下评估候选人的成就,就像物理学、天文学、计算机和信息科学等领域一直以来所做的那样。在生物学上没有什么好借口不这样做。事实上,相当多的大学已经在生物科学领域找到了一个很好的方法,并且有很好的、有用的例子。合作是现代生物学的命脉,任何不理解这一点的生物学家都不应该被要求在晋升和终身教职委员会任职。一旦人们接受了21世纪生物学的多学科性质,就离认识到实际上“我们现在都是科学家”只有很短的一步,而解决当今主要问题的唯一方法就是共同努力。生物学家再也不能独立于计算机和信息科学家、数学家、统计学家和物理学家而工作了。作为科学家,我们必须共同努力,了解我们所生活的物理和生物世界。唯一可行的方法就是鼓励和奖励合作,尤其是年轻同事之间的合作。人类的未来要求我们共同采取尽可能广泛的视角,并采取相应的行动来破译和理解我们有幸生活的世界。只有这样,我们才能成功应对气候变化和生态系统适应所带来的重大挑战,无论我们是否参与其中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Rewarding Collaboration
This is the season when many assistant professors in the U.S. are subjected to the vagaries of their universities’ promotion and tenure process. A common piece of advice that is given to job candidates and newly hired assistant professors is that it is important to work independently of other faculty so that one’s accomplishments can be measured easily without the complication caused by involving more established scientists, making the evaluation of individual contributions difficult. However, from the modern perspective that faculty scientists should do the best possible, cutting-edge science, this is arguably the worst possible advice a new faculty member could be given. Collaboration is fundamentally important in 21st century biology. ‘‘We are all biologists now’’ is a widely mentioned, but oft forgotten phrase when tenure decisions come around. This statement simply means that limiting one’s work to merely a subdiscipline is out of date. Plant scientists can no longer simply be molecular biologists, biochemists, cell biologists, ecologists, or geneticists. If we are to understand plants at the level of dynamic living systems shaped by evolution in the rich context of their interrelationships with other organisms, then we have to embrace all of these disciplines plus more, stretching to even more diverse fields, such as mathematics, physics, the computer and information sciences, and engineering. No longer can any of us isolate ourselves; rather, we must all embrace multidisciplinary biology as a core principle. The promotion and tenure process should require both the candidate and the committee to explicitly identify and evaluate individual contributions. It should be the duty and responsibility of all promotion and tenure committees to assess and recognize the nature and extent of collaborations and of individual contributions to collaborative research. In today’s world, clear evidence of significant contribution to successful and substantive collaboration should be expected of almost any candidate for promotion and tenure in the biological sciences; never should a candidate be penalized for engaging in collaborative work. In short, collaboration should be expected, not discouraged! It is often claimed that it is difficult to determine who did what when junior faculty collaborate with senior faculty. This is nothing more than an abdication of responsibility: any promotion and tenure committee should be able to assess a candidate’s accomplishments within the context of collaborative research, as is done all the time in fields such as physics, astronomy, and the computer and information sciences. There is no good excuse for not doing the same in biology. In point of fact, quite a few universities have already figured out a process to do this well in the biological sciences, and good, useful examples are available. Collaboration is the lifeblood of modern biology, and any biologist who doesn’t understand this should not be asked to serve on a promotion and tenure committee. Once one accepts the multidisciplinary nature of 21st century biology, it is just a short step to realizing that actually ‘‘we are all scientists now’’ and that the only way to solve the major questions of the day is to work together. Biologists can no longer operate independently of computer and information scientists, mathematicians, statisticians, and physicists. It is essential that we all work together as scientists to understand the physical and biological world in which we live. The only way this is going to work is by encouraging and rewarding collaboration, especially in our younger colleagues. The future of humankind requires that we collectively adopt the broadest possible perspective and act accordingly to decipher and understand the world in which we are privileged to live. Only in this way we will be able to successfully address the major challenges we face as climates change and ecosystems adapt, with us or without us.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信