This article questions the thinking behind "contingency plans for universities in the event that they fail which would protect researchers and their research," stipulating a set of conditions (eg., "there is sufficient funding", "the researcher wishes to move", etc.) needed to make this happen. But while not endorsing the contingency plans I would suggest that the heading really should be "You can't save university research without saving universities". I mean, I work in a non-university research institute, and I know of many others. Take, for example, the comment that "a building I know only too well cost ~£55M to construct, uses ~£1.5M+ in electricity a year and produces some very important technological advances." Nothing stops it from continuing on its own. There's no reason a full university infrastructure needs to surround that building, and in the case of many stand-alone research institutes world-wide, it doesn't.
Today: 0 Total: 92 [Direct link] [Share]
