Lately I wonder whether I'm letting myself feel anything anymore. I think I'm trying not to stress about short-term things (revisions, aptitude, expectations) and trying not to worry about those long-term things (where I'll be/who I'll be with 20-50 years from now), but it might be backfiring. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to hide stress, I'm honestly trying to handle it better. But maybe I handled it ok anyway.

I'm not getting very good sleep. My stomach is teetering - no coffee, limit milk. I'm taking my chinese meds again. I hadn't needed it for months at the end of last year. My nails are gone. It's the Auckland/Lab/Flat-combination syndrome.

Ok, maybe I am stressed. But at least I'm not freaking out, which isn't productive at all and at most - just irritating.


----------------
Now playing: Colbie Caillat - Bubbly
via FoxyTunes

My official start date for the Fid is 01 May 2008. But I went in for the whole week anyway, because (A) I can't help myself, and (B) I need to get back into the groove of thinking "scientifically" (whatever that means).

Lab Meeting

Monday was my first lab meeting since I got back and I was pretty excited/apprehensive about it. Luckily I wasn't asked any tough questions. In fact, the only question I got was from CS, "How was the corporate world?", to which I offered what was perhaps a tough answer,"Good - I enjoyed it a lot more than I thought I would." This was met with outbursts from around the circle, e.g. "No! You can't say that!", to which I sarcastically remarked, "Oh, I mean - I hated it, it was horrible."

But like I said before, I enjoy and dislike them both for opposite/different reasons. Science allows me to (try) satisfy my innate curiosity about the world and challenges my very basic skills in understanding, logic, problem-solving, while CE removed me from discovering the natural world. On the other hand, CE seems to have a much more streamlined managerial hierarchy and operational/decision-making processes - so I can get what I need to do my job well, while at university, it's very difficult to get basic things to do your job.

I also find the ownership/responsibility attitudes of the people in both groups different. I don't know how to describe it just yet, but it probably has something to do with how people are motivated (salaries, higher-calling, etc.)

Freak-Out

I had a bit of a subconscious, undercover freak-out, which escalated to its peak on Wed, when I finally realised I really had come out of the scientific mindset and therefore, had to be more active in going "back in". Not only that, but I was hyper-intimidated by the people again, which doesn't do my confidence/thinking any good. So I guess I'm still settling in.

Friday/Saturday

Friday actually ended pretty well, with me being more sure about what I need to do. Also, I had b'day drinks at Cock & Bull, which was pretty awesome. Hope everyone who came had a good time and also very grateful for everyone who communicated (via one way and/or another) b'day wishes - it's my favourite part of the birthday - as I have mentioned before.

But IJ said that MC was looking for me when IJ left the lab, which was about 30 min after I had already left... so I am a bit worried about that.

This morning, I got up really early to do chores before going for a 5 h self-defence course, which was quite fun. I've also cooked enough so that I don't have to cook for the next 12 nights! Sweet.

Technorati Tags : Cherrieland, Life

From cherrieland.blogspot.com

The title of this 'manifesto' says it all in its inclusion of the word "recovery" - NZ science is unwell - its sustenance is tethering on decisions of those who don't know what is needed to alleviate the great weight stressing its backbone - the scientists who discover, validate and transfer skills and knowledge. How many people consciously realise that everything we know about our world and most technology we possess came from the process of science?

At least, that's the picture this manifesto paints and judging from the talk going on around the place (see the NZ Association of Scientists' response and an article in a recent National Business Review, NZ Science Talk blog), I suspect it's not far from the truth.

It's sad, really - that (one of) my chosen career paths already is already mapped with obstacles - obstacles that don't need to be there - on top of the obstacles intrinsic to the job. It tires me just to think about it. I hope my passion for science will pull me through every set back that I know I will encounter if NZ science is to continue in its current direction... brain drain? Either mine or NZ's, right?

Anyway, this post is just me wondering aloud. Keep in mind I don't really know enough about how science works in NZ to fully understand what this document states.

1. Develop a National Science Strategy
• identifies NZ's science needs/directions, resource/capability needs, international trends
• consider roles of government and private sector, identify/support necessary links
• I just find this weird - so what do we have now? Also, this seems like it'll take forever to pull together (like, by the time it is, it'd be out of date, OR it has to be so vague that this won't happen - but then it'd be so common sense, it'd be quite tragic to realise that whoever is in charge didn't understand it)
  
2. Establish an Office of the Chief Scientist
• Chief Scientist/Science Council directly advising the leader of the government
• OK, so I sorta thought that the HRC did that, but maybe I got it wrong and currently the HRC works under the direction of the Minister. But anyway, so is it saying that currently the NZ government is not advised by any scientists at all? That's also weird.
  
3. Enhance Innovation Policy
• "...it must acknowledge that innovation represents more than mere efficiency gains and enhancements to business practice."
• I think this is trying to say that creativity cannot be measured by some silly productivity measure! More money needs to be invested for potentially greater return that-is-not-guaranteed, but more likely to happen due to overcoming that resourcing barrier. It comes down to trying to build environments that foster useful creative thinking and oftentimes, idea-generation can appear an idle process to the superficial observer (or productivity measure).
  
• "To build an innovation-based economy we need policies that enhance relationships between the wider business sector, the Crown Research Institutes and universities. Science institutions need to co-operate with businesses, not compete with them as they do under current policy."
• Yeah, competition like that sucks - I think it's talking about resourcing again.
  
4. Ensure that Government Policy Processes are Evidence-Based
• "...NZ must have its best researchers involved in government's wider policy processes, providing input to policy and legislation."
• public intellectuals. enough said. (I still haven't finished that book)
  
5. Reduce Transaction and Compliance Costs
• "...must change the way our science is funded...the process should be less bureaucratic..."
• "bulk funding"
• "NZ also needs to develop high-quality retrospective science monitoring processes involving peer review."
• I think this fifth recommendation sits pretty close to the every day complaints around the place and is probably not a problem that sits only within science. But I think the theme among all the recommendations is pretty clear by now.
  
6. Continue to Increase Both Public and Private RS&T Investment
• "...increased investment in science, including basic science, is essential. Most science funding applications in NZ have a failure rate greater than 80%... not based on the quality of the proposal but solely as a consequence of having insufficient funding available"
• "NZ needs a deeper pool of research knowledge, ideas and opportunities. We need to retain excellent people. We need to build critical mass."
• "Many companies in NZ have taken up that challenge investing in RS&T and establishing their own climate of innovation...[list of companies] These companies believe in research. They invest in research... If NZ is to lift its GDP per capita to that of Australia or our European competitors, we need far more of these... businesses, which are based on strong RS&T. Most NZ businesses, however, do not look to RS&T to build their growth. Generally they invest far too little in this area compared with businesses in other countries."
  
7. Improve the Path to Commercialisation
• address link between innovation and commercialisation
• I guess they're talking about research ideas that are applicable to commercialisation, that is not to say that commercially-viable projects should have precedence over basic scientific research, but just that the disparity between the two needs to be looked at to ensure that it is easier to commercialise, if that is what is suitable
  
8. Promote Science Across the Entire Education System
• "NZ needs to at least double its number of science PhD graduates"
• I find that sort of weird, since where will these people come from and where will the funds/resources to educate them come from?
  
9. Build National Recognition of the Public Value of Science
• "...the application of public and private scientific research underpins the overall health and wealth of a nation."
• I agree that there is not enough respect given to science for its contributions to society. Many people see it as an intellectual pursuit.
  
10. Trust Science, Scientists and Scientific Institutions
• "... greater decision-making responsibilities to the science agencies"
• "... promoting cooperation, rather than competition"
• "... assisting scientist' development, particularly early in their careers."
  

Well, I'll leave you to ponder this for yourselves.

Technorati Tags : Cherrieland, New Zealand, RSNZ, Science

From cherrieland.blogspot.com