Wednesday, March 16, 2011
How Many Gallons On The Jeep Cherroke Overland
engo two weeks trying to register for the PEI (Programa Stimulus to Research) of ONCTI (National Centre for Science, Technology and Research). In fact all my social and professional life has stopped because of this.
For those who do science and social research in Venezuela on PEI is well known as the ultimate instrument of torture bureaucracy: a digital questionnaire that requires us to convert dozens of documents from our careers in pdf files (which can not exceed 500 kb each).
addition, some of the required questions are totally irrelevant, for example, instead of asking the dates of publication of the articles requires the approval date thereof. Who retains this information insignificant? We are all pulling their hair to baldness and smoke blackening the walls with anguished frustration.
the questionnaire also supports only acceptable areas of research as four lines and let out a comprehensive disciplines (like mathematics) and themes (as health). At the same time equates science with endogenous technologies and similar efforts of inquiry. The issue goes beyond the folly questionnaire reveals a profound misunderstanding of what science and systematic inquiry about the world. I talked about this before in other delivery
this blog
. But refer to three points acknowledged. First the PEI 
attempts to regulate and control science. By its very nature of science is a set of methods free-only limited by the requirements of rigor, whose addresses can not be foreseen or not bound.
Second, science and technology experiences trying endogenous valid but different. The first is thorough, detailed and accurate while the endogenous is intuitive and, in general, traditional. Both can learn from each other, but are not similar. Here's an example: in eastern Venezuela from pre-Columbian times has taken a concoction made from the bark of a tree to prevent and cure malaria. Is an infusion ancestral whose effectiveness is no doubt. Science tells us that the active ingredient of tea is quinine, a substance that also help control malaria, and dangerous side effects and potential damage to the retina of the eye. This information is required to regulate their use and control the undesirable effects. The endogenous science drew the cortex might be useful, science provides chemical and medicinal properties and discriminate the aftermath of the active ingredient. 
attempts to regulate and control science. By its very nature of science is a set of methods free-only limited by the requirements of rigor, whose addresses can not be foreseen or not bound. Third, registration of scientists is important, but one consequence of PEI will be the systematic exclusion of the more experienced. There
various opinions about our participation in the PEI. As is evident attempt to do so. But there are different and valid position. Reproduce in this issue two of them, the doctors Carín Ludeman and María Pilar García Guadilla.
reproduce below comments Carín Ludeña
on PEI.
Colleagues:
I've heard a lot in recent days to a significant number of serious colleagues abandon the idea of \u200b\u200bparticipating in the IEP for reasons that are acceptable, which I fully, and include the inability in practice to collect the requirements (from placing photocopies of titles in digital format less than 500K to the problem of the weighting of the authors or the requirement of publication in national journals) but also critical background to the call such as the requirement to work in areas priorities, which to date have not been made explicitly by any authority, lack of clarity in the mechanisms for the formation of evaluation committees and finally the requirement to certify the participation "voluntary" in the call, which generates the feeling of approving a mechanism by which many do not agree.
I believe, however, that this called and the decision to participate or not he should not be treated only as an individual decision. Under the recently approved LOCTI we face a collective decision involving the science and should be taken as a political and not personal.
Looking to the future imagine two scenarios. In the first, a sum of individual decisions without discussing their validity, creates a list of approved hard to discern, which are excluded or under-qualified some conspicuous representatives of the scientific work and included some less qualified or deserving. No doubt this will generate a wave of opinion against the process, but lack clearly defined patterns subtracted weight to the protest. This, in addition to the voices that will not stop ARTICIPANTS not imply that they stopped for fear of a "real" assessment. In the second, a strong community involvement, supported institutionally by CDCHs, faculties (Faculty of Sciences, UCV are discussing ways to ONCTI including the possibility of delivering an electronic file formats the requirements more flexible) or, if it is not possible to have institutional support for scientific associations such as ASOVAC. The same should be included along with required documents, a letter staff which indicated that participation in the process in any way validates the terms thereof and to include criticisms. Legally this is not contradictory with the voluntary, since at no time formally accepts agree with the call. In this second scenario more systematic, in order to show the discretion of the process and the lack of consistency in their evaluation criteria with the purposes put forward in support of science makes more sense. Not that I think you do not use the same vacuous arguments of "... in this first assessment would be left out those who were not ..." but that having a systematic list give us much more strongly to the outside of the country is finally where it hurts most things, as is evident in how quickly respond to all publications in prestigious international journals to any criticism of its management. In summary, despite the difficulties and arbitrariness, intend to participate in the IEP, letter of non-acceptance of the conditions by, endorsed and institutionally cambote.
Recalling that it is not every one of us, but the expression of political will to reject the new winds blowing from the ministry that supposedly brings us.
Sincerely,
Ludeman Carenne
In the following are comments from
María del Pilar García Guadilla
on the new and the old PEI PPI:
Dear colleagues and friends who believe in science without qualification (as a socialist or capitalist ) and also in the freedom to decide our rules by pairs:
me deeply concerned about the scant information available on PEI, especially by teachers young people, some of which have come asking about it and asking "whether or not to apply to it." The sad thing is that many / as have not read the Regulations and are applied without knowing exactly what principles ethical and what impositions they are giving the nod. I'm glad that you have stopped the Universities Act but am concerned that they accept the imposition of this regulation Authoritarian IEP, but even that improvised Bill anterior.Por this, try the following considerations as a justification of my position " active disobedience. "
Stimulus OR CONTROL RESEARCH EXCLUSION AND DISTRACTION?
As a researcher active since its inception in 1990 (level IV), having carefully read the Stimulus Program Rules Investigator (PEI) and being co-venturer with Star Laredo, on behalf of the Company Galilean, in the creation of the PPI and chairwoman of Social Sciences and Humanities, I could not wish to share with you these disturbing questions (and please forgive the redundancy but can not find another language). Authoritarianism, INJUSTICE AND DISTRACTION is highly concerned that without having assessed the PPI, it is removed, indeed, that the wealth of experience accumulated over the last twenty years has been thrown overboard without giving reasons or, without accountability as required by our constitution, the scientific community and society. Has been taken into account that there are multiple assessments, those who wish to change their criteria blindly without derived from a thorough, they had noticed that for almost twenty years of the program, the scientific community has been constantly modified and improved to suit the national situation. Much of such changes, which were agreed by the scientific community and relevant institutions, they represented necessary adjustments and desired by all, were carried out in the current government period (2000-2008). Undoubtedly, the PPI has had a high positive impact in regard to scientific sovereignty and economic and technological development of the country either short, medium or long term because each of the brings science equally to these concepts but in different terms. This impact has been recognized on numerous occasions FONACIT should be the basis of our demand, replacing the PPI and continue to meet the obligations that the government took to the researchers. This does not mean you should not be reviewed on an ongoing basis as has been done since its creation. Neither
popular innovative concept may well be accommodated in the system (in fact already had it in recognition and reward for inventiveness and of course could be extended) and the strategic priority that always existed and for which commissions were established evaluation of parallel projects which were allocated much larger quantities (Eg Housing and Urban Development that ran at least until 2002), in any way justify the elimination of PPI. Beyond time to continue complying with their obligations, what is gained by deleting the single database that already exists and therefore consisted build?. Could it be that, fade and disappear researchers and we have to rebuild a new history of research?.
In times of great need, no one would cut a green tree that provides shade and is growing or collapse a building on a solid foundation that has demonstrated a high ability to adapt to changing conditions to build something new on shaky ground and many uncertainties. Of course the tree or the existing building maintenance should be appropriate for them to continue its role.
I think we all have an obligation to read REGULATION because in my opinion not only concerns researchers but affects the very essence of the university as we know and dream. At stake is first, our dignity as claimants fair merit awards we earn helping to generate and create knowledge and culture as universal norms and standards agreed between the parties, we are becoming beggars and we are distracting of our just demands. All for the next last two years that supposedly this call because after that time, there is no guarantee of continuity (Read the Rules). Neither accreditation in the system and the consequent approval of his application by the Evaluation Commission which will ensure the long-coveted prize: You must have an approved research project and ongoing accountability on it to earn the course credit (IEP says no is salary). (Articles 19 and 20). If you fail to comply with the project or the Commission considers that the results do not contribute to the sovereignty or no social impact, you do not get paid.
The truth that the government is pure profit and the researchers, pure loss: PPI unfairly eliminated us, appropriated funds LOPTI and now with these funds, in addition to paying its bureaucracy, forcing the investigator to do projects on the lines which unilaterally and without sufficient criteria have been defined as priority for receiving alms ; always subject it to ODD and assessments according to criteria of equity and merit or not of scientists.
In my opinion, the regulation of PEI is an instrument imposed from above without criteria to legitimize it, without the need to rescue historical continuity of experience, totally out of step with constitutional requirements for participation of research subjects, lacks objectivity necessary it lacks conceptual coherence and ends resulting in an instrument to exclude researchers, instead of including even more. Again, to include, not be excluded because all fit and we have demonstrated since the inception of the PPI for more than twenty years, we have the same desire to collaborate to improve the quality of life of society.
How can agree on the following conceptual imprecision?:
Article 4: "The IEP meet the following objectives:
1) Facilitate the formulation and implementation of projects of sustainable research and innovation through knowledge generation, (which) contribute to achieving full national sovereignty and social welfare "
First, the regulation defines recursively" innovation "but he makes the distinction between innovation and research, or even defines" research. "It seems that the novelty of the system and PEI the great discovery is innovation and that only because it creates new knowledge, to our knowledge, the research involves new knowledge. Secondly, what is an innovation project or research, sustainable?. Who defines and how to define sustainability? What requirements should include projects that generate national sovereignty and who defines it and how?. Is it that there are two kinds of knowledge?: Good knowledge (and knowledge generated sovereignty bad that it generates?.
What requirements should include projects that generate social welfare?. Are there two types of knowledge: that generate well-being and not generate it?
Each paragraph of each item is highly debatable so I can not break down one by one. However, the aforementioned review the requirements for Researchers:
Article 9: "Have participated (Researcher A and B) or targeted (Researcher C) successfully in the past five years in research projects framed in the priority areas of science, technology and innovation
I wonder
1) What is it and who defines the ambiguity of "having participated successfully."
2) To my knowledge, the law does not accept the retroactivity of the implicit rules which would apply the view that the projects "have had to be framed in the priority areas" which have been defined a posteriori.
3) On the other hand, experience has shown that in recent years has been almost impossible to have the resources to ensure continuity research projects of the institutional body is now required.
Another requirement is to access PEI:
"To have done activities in science, technology and innovation, impact on community and social spaces.
First, the social impacts include the community. Secondly, how you will measure the social impact?. If the number of publications, must be regarded as the great support they gave FONACIT the emergence and consolidation of peer review and quality, long ago no longer exists and, unfortunately, magazines both struggled to keep up with high quality are disappearing discontinuity of financial support.
"CO-PARTICIPATION OR CONTROL?
The Article 30 reads:
" Operational aspects of PEI, will be taken by the Commission Central, which shall consist of five (5) members, namely .. ":
3 of ONCTI (president and two employees), one (1) public representative and a researcher or innovator
In any case, the Central Committee will be only one representative of researchers and innovators. In case of (whose probability is 50% at least) that is the innovator also selected as representative of researchers, it is not required any level of education ( even high school); enough to be classified in the ambiguous category of innovation. The question is, what researchers have involvement in this committee is called, as is, "Commission Central ". The other question is: Who chooses the innovator or researcher who will sit next to those designated by the ONCTI and the Public Sector?. We understand that they will be elected by the Central Commission for creating a circuit of centralization and lack of participation and exclusion.
But tell that to the eight committees that are Assessment in science and humanities and ninth commission or catchall called "Technology and Innovation" which I think means that engineers and other professionals each of which has separate committees, do not do technology.
say that there is the evaluation committees different areas. The five members will be elected among innovators, researchers and servers (as) public. Not define who they are public servants not to mention whether public servants shall be the majority or minority in such a scientific committee evaluating or if given permission to attend the evaluation process.
presume that such public servants, which have the same share that researchers, innovators in the Central Committee and at least equal, in the Evaluation Commission are another category of researchers and / or innovative "that can replace it perfectly We were not to qualify as "public servants". As such, fall within the PEI system under the conceptual ambiguity that envelops the entire regulation.
I suggest also review the composition of such committees evaluation at any time point parity or excellence or knowledge as criteria but rather to adhere strictly to the principle of gender equality ethnic (¿?), (?) in addition to regions, institutions and disciplines. While gender and ethnic equity could be a breakthrough in cases such as political parties have joint or denied access to public office candidates to women and other groups, I wonder, what has to do this equity with the need to apply knowledge to assess the science and technology, creation, and why not innovation?
Anyway, who elect these members of the evaluation committees (in research or innovation) is above the Central Committee which means that the Commission could be very "balanced" but not having a single investigator, but public servants and "innovative." Moreover, if you disagree with the assessment that such evaluation committee made his case, he may appeal to the Review Committee composed of 18 members elected by the previous procedures, ie, at the discretion de equidad de género, étnica, regional..etc., etc..
EXCLUSION Y CONTROL
Art. 17
Parágrafo Primero:"Los(as) innovadores(as) e investigadores (as) acreditados(as) podrán optar a programas de financiamiento promovidos por la Autoridad Nacional, para llevar a cabo actividades, tales como: asistencia a congresos, difusión y divulgación de actividades de ciencia, tecnología e innovación, edición de productos, organización de eventos científicos, gestiones de registro de Derecho de Propiedad Intelectual y escalamiento industrial que contemple el Estado Venezolano"
Significa lo anterior que si voluntariamente un investigador decide no inscribirse, will be excluded from the benefits that the State must provide to all citizens. Is it then a rogue scientist who does not even have the right to register their patents and intellectual property?
Article 29:
"If the ground is outside the country for more than six months during the term of accreditation shall previously notify the Central Commission of PEI, in order to process the temporary suspension of the program"
" means that if you go to a research internship related or not your project or going on vacation and conferences for a period longer than six months in two years that accreditation in another way, we suspended the program?
What is my proposal?
To be consistent with the ideas expressed above, my proposal is that the PPI should be maintained and that the discussion needed for that transformation must begin with what already exists. The participation of demand is not to negotiate on a document that did and did not even our peers, but on a document prepared jointly by relevant government bodies and the subjects that are related to the topic.
I am aware that we will succeed only if there is unity because unity is strength against the improvisations, authoritarianism, the irrationalities and try to ignore that we exist, the researchers said. I have not heard any colleague who disagrees with the IEP but I've heard several that while they disagree, they say, may apply. I wish to draw the ethical conscience of the latter to re-read the Rules and reflect on the principles governing it and finally decide, not based on the possible temporary charity will receive in exchange for their principles, but in those principles as part of our heritage as people and as researchers. For me, at least, the principles and ideology that underlie the regulation, including its referent, the Law on Science and Technology, I find unacceptable from the ethical, scientific, constitutional and personal.
THAT IS WHY I'M NOT APPLY TO PEI AND together to manifest in disobedience and active rejection. María Pilar García
Guadilla
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment