Not professor. Not researcher. Not scientist. PI.
For the casual observer outside of academia, “PI” is not “Private investigator,” but “principle investigator.” It is grant-speak, words used by American funding agencies like the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation to designate who is the lead researcher on a particular project.
It’s reflective of how people are increasingly defining their careers in science by whether they are able to pull in grant money. I don’t think it’s healthy either for the profession or for individuals.
4 comments:
It’s reflective of how people are increasingly defining their careers in science by whether they are able to pull in grant money.
This may be true to an extent, but I think more often 'PI' is used to clarify the type of position we are seeking, that we are looking to strike out on our own. However, given how much we are told about the importance of funding, it is perhaps not surprising that the ability to pull in grant money is becoming a part of how we define that position.
It may be grant-speak, but it's also a more fitting term in some ways. At my current school, the academic departments are intermingled with hospitals and research institutes, and many of the people whose primary appointment is outside the university proper have titles equivalent to, but different from "professor" (and they rarely if ever teach). So "PI" encompasses all the lab heads in the community.
I remember how angry I got some 25 years ago, reading any article in a local weekly which said that the successful artist would be the ones who learned how to manipulate the grant machinery. What happened to the work? Well, it did explain how poetry was taken over by the utterly mediocre fellows who schmoozed the grant machinery in the arts councils. So much for that area. Why should science be any different?
Indeed. I'm *certain* it isn't...
Post a Comment