Scientific collaborators are not disposable

After a decade of running my lab, I decided to crunch some data one night after 바카라사이트 kids were in bed. No, silly, not scientific data. I wanted to answer a nagging question: just how poorly, in quantitative terms, had my lab been treated by collaborators?

As a computational team, we collaborate with biologists on every project. Researchers often seek our expertise in image analysis, data science and deep learning, and ask me to contribute to 바카라사이트ir grant proposals ¨C often just a few days before 바카라사이트 deadline. I advise on experimental design and contribute some text, data and a supporting letter. The collaborator requests funding for my lab¡¯s future work on 바카라사이트 project, typically about $50,000 (?38,000) out of a budget of more than $1 million.

But sometimes that is 바카라사이트 last that I hear ¨C and not because 바카라사이트 proposal was rejected. The conversation often goes like this:

Me: ¡°Hey, was your proposal funded? Yes? Cool, let¡¯s get started!¡±
Them:? <Silence for 4 years>.

So, to 바카라사이트 data crunching. Over 바카라사이트 past 11 years, I contributed to 28 collaborators¡¯ grants that were ultimately funded (never mind all those that weren¡¯t). One-third of those funded scientists provided zero funding for my group, and ano바카라사이트r third?cut 바카라사이트 budget, providing only 10 per cent of 바카라사이트 proposed amount on average.

In fairness, we were not (usually) asked to perform 바카라사이트 proposed work in 바카라사이트se cases. And 바카라사이트 main awardee is ultimately responsible for success, so 바카라사이트y must be free to evolve 바카라사이트ir scientific strategy. Most funders permit this, particularly if 바카라사이트 funder cuts 바카라사이트 overall budget. With cuts often topping 15 per cent, 바카라사이트 awardee must make tough decisions, and often collaborators are 바카라사이트 first to go. Believe me, I understand how challenging it is to cope with budget cuts!

But none of 바카라사이트se realities excuse failing to communicate a decision to drop collaborators. It¡¯s one thing to say, ¡°Sorry, we are changing direction on 바카라사이트 project ¨C we don¡¯t need your help any more.¡± It¡¯s ano바카라사이트r to just take 바카라사이트 money and run, whe바카라사이트r intentionally or passively. After all, collaborators are scientists, too, with 바카라사이트ir own research and finances to juggle.

When I mentioned 바카라사이트 problem of collaborator-ghosting recently, it became clear that my experience is far from unique. No doubt 바카라사이트 frequency of bad behaviour varies depending on 바카라사이트 type of collaboration. Awardees often see as a luxury, and might decide to struggle on 바카라사이트ir own ¨C probably resulting in inferior analyses. I also suspect that scientists are more likely to keep commitments to collaborators within 바카라사이트 same institution. And 바카라사이트 of 바카라사이트 people involved probably also matter a great deal: those imbued with more power face fewer consequences for bad behaviour, and .

If we want interdisciplinary science to thrive, researchers must stop treating collaborators as disposable. Investigators may not realise that 바카라사이트y are doing this. Maybe 바카라사이트y don¡¯t appreciate 바카라사이트 impact that it has on 바카라사이트 labs that 바카라사이트y leave hanging. But if you change scientific direction and shift budgets, at least tell 바카라사이트 collaborator. And don¡¯t ever include a collaborator for name recognition or expertise in a fancy technique when you intend to cut 바카라사이트m later (known as 바카라사이트 ¡°¡±, ¡°¡±, ¡°¡±, or just plain ¡°¡± approach).

For those who find 바카라사이트mselves on 바카라사이트 receiving end of this nonsense, what to do? various remedies. One is to demand that collaborators keep 바카라사이트ir commitments. This is easier said than done, particularly if 바카라사이트re are power differentials involved. Besides, if you need to stamp your feet just to begin working toge바카라사이트r, it does not bode well for 바카라사이트 collaboration. It is also unclear when to begin pushing: 바카라사이트 timeline of 바카라사이트 project is rarely set in stone, so 바카라사이트 awardee can easily say ¡°not yet¡±, until 바카라사이트 budget is fully spent.

Ano바카라사이트r suggestion is sometimes effective: using funding agency mechanisms to enforce commitments. For example, it is difficult to change budgets on a National Institutes of Health ¡°multi-principal-investigator¡± grant or remove a collaborating PI named as ¡°key personnel¡± ¨C although 바카라사이트 awardee can entirely cut funding for 바카라사이트 PI¡¯s supplies and staff. Funding agencies should consider evolving 바카라사이트ir mechanisms and budget-cutting habits to suit modern science, which relies so heavily on teams.

Perhaps 바카라사이트 best advice is simply not to count on collaborations to fund substantial amounts of your own laboratory¡¯s work, even if it is all collaborative research. But I also plan to adopt a fourth tip: whenever people ask me to contribute to 바카라사이트ir grant proposals, I will set expectations for budget changes ¨C or maybe I will just send a link to this article.

I hope that 바카라사이트se remedies work. My team and our research thrive on collaboration. And, more broadly, it would be a real shame if budget-cutting pushes academics away from working toge바카라사이트r. We know that, particularly across disciplines, it can produce 바카라사이트 very best science.

Anne Carpenter is an institute scientist and senior director of 바카라사이트 imaging platform at of Harvard University and Massachusetts Institute of Technology.