onemike wrote:i'd never before considered the similarities between non-biologists and the fuhrer.
Come on, onemike, you have to know that wasn't what I was getting at. I'm trying to prod people into justifying their boilerplate statements such as the need for a fresh perspective. In doing so, I'm not arguing against a fresh perspective but rather I'm asking people what they mean
by it. My fuhrer comment was by way of noting that "new and different" for its own sake isn't necessarily the way to go.
I'm not just saying any fresh perspective would be good -- that's why I'm encouraging us to think about candidates, so we could find someone who could bring in a fresh perspective that's good.
Frankly, I think it would be a whole lot more useful to concentrate on what the "perspective" ought to be, which further entails an analysis of what's right and wrong with the current one. By virtue of compiling his "cure map," Art would seem to be in a position to make some contributions here beyond tossing around stock phrases.
From what Deb says, Coetzee seems like a good choice, though we should look into him more, and certainly we should brainstorm more before settling on him.
Her post on Coetzee was fantastic. Why? Bescause it was detailed and analytical. It provided the why along with the what. That's all I'm seeking.
Willy, why don't you suggest a few people who you think would be good at the job
I don't have a clue. I'm not going to move beyond my competence, and my competence does not extend to picking an NMSS research director. But my competence does
extend to analyzing the logic of a proposition. I think I'm a reasonably good critical thinker, and a fair-minded one.
Just to clear something up about the question of expertise: the VP of research doesn't actually do any research. He is in charge of team that approves grants for other people to do research, and he interacts with the other NMSS administrators in deciding how much money will be given to research and towards what mission.
It would be really good to get even more detail about this. I don't want to get into my personal background, but I can tell you that I spent a long time looking at organizations of all kinds and how they run. The internal structure and funding speak volumes about an executive position. One thing that's clear from having read the NMSS's financial statements is that their director of research is one of the highest-paid people.
What isn't clear is the structure and duties of the job. For example, how are projects approved? Who else is involved? I see that the NMSS has research directors within subsectors, so they must also be involved. What's the balance between the research director's internal and external duties? onemike began this thread by accusing the current DOR of being a drug company stooge. Does the DOR spend much time with the pharmaceutical companies? If so, how so? Does the NMSS's director of research have a policymaking role? A fundraising role?
We don't yet have a good sense of what the DOR really does
there, and until we know this it is impossible to intelligently
suggest a candidate. This isn't a criticism of mine. It's a plea for more information. Hell, if you want to toss names out there, you can flip through a damn phone book for all it will matter. But if you want to potentially
have an impact, then you'll learn a lot more about the position before recoomending someone for it.