Talk Academia

kokoroko wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 10, 2019 4:48 pm

Regarding gender aspects; I just noticed that in the application form I had to declare my *gender*. On the other hand, I had the option to declare the *sex* of my proposed supervisor. I believe the person responsible for the forms didn't consider gender aspects of the form carefully enough!

hmdoel wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 10, 2019 1:59 am

well, i am in Ranking, so at least my score is above 70, but I have reread my proposal and compare with last year proposal that got 95%, my proposal will not score that high, i will be extremely lucky to get 90.

In any case, this is my first attempt, but i spent few months for preparation. I read several guidelines online, the only problem was my host doesnt have previous succesful experience and during that time, i didnt have an example of succesful proposal. I am quite proud about the proposal thou, but comparing with the succesful proposal, i know there are several shortcomings...

Till next year then...

michelef wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 10, 2019 1:47 am

Well unless you forgot a whole section of the proposal, that's impossible to know... so there's hope

hmdoel wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 10, 2019 1:42 am

My next new year resolution : waiting 153 days without losing my cool

I lost this year, both the grant and my cool :/

Well, still need the official result but I am sure I will mot get score higher than 92.6

Turpentine wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:14 am

This is really a grey area and they should be more specific about that. In my mind, gender doesn't really apply to cell lines or animals. In life science, it could become relevant maybe at the drug trial phase, and again, sex is the correct term here, not gender. I agree with previous comments that if they don't want to fund your proposal, they would always find something to say, and if they think you must get it, they wouldn't care if gender considerations are not essential to your research. I think we all have different opinions, and the experts who advised us don't all agree on these stuff. I really believe that common sense should prevail as our reviewers are also scientists (and humans) who are writing proposal and have to deal with these crappy formatting. Anyway, the mc grant seems really special as it has to fit with your career development and your needs. it's more about that apparently than pure scientific impact. That's my understanding of all this process, I can be wrong

sound wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 10, 2019 6:53 am

The gender aspect is not just for human subjects but also for invitro and in vivo experiments.these days its mandatory to state if the cell line is of female or male origin and invivo of course male or female rat mouse pog etc. If it is not possible to account for this because of availability it should be clarified. Any place where gender would contribute to bias one is expected to discuss how they would overcome it or are limited.

michelef wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 10, 2019 3:32 am

The proposal template is very clear that the gender paragraph is mandatory for research involving human
subjects... If not, hopefully it may be ok anyway not including the gender dimension

Dort wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:07 pm

To me this "gender issue" is very complicated. If I don't think it is relevant it is not, period. I honestly don't think that the reviewer's opinion is relevant on this matter. Why should I care about gender in my research if that's not my proposal? I'm dealing with human subjects, I'm going to interview a lot of people if I get the fellowship, but I really dont care if they are male or female, it is fairly irrelevant to what I'm proposing, to my methods, my conclusion... If 100% of my interviewees are women or 0% the results would be exactly the same. I'm from the left, but this insistence on forcing "social justice" where it is just irrelevant is pretty ridiculous.

Turpentine wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:14 am

This is really a grey area and they should be more specific about that. In my mind, gender doesn't really apply to cell lines or animals. In life science, it could become relevant maybe at the drug trial phase, and again, sex is the correct term here, not gender. I agree with previous comments that if they don't want to fund your proposal, they would always find something to say, and if they think you must get it, they wouldn't care if gender considerations are not essential to your research. I think we all have different opinions, and the experts who advised us don't all agree on these stuff. I really believe that common sense should prevail as our reviewers are also scientists (and humans) who are writing proposal and have to deal with these crappy formatting. Anyway, the mc grant seems really special as it has to fit with your career development and your needs. it's more about that apparently than pure scientific impact. That's my understanding of all this process, I can be wrong

sound wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 10, 2019 6:53 am

The gender aspect is not just for human subjects but also for invitro and in vivo experiments.these days its mandatory to state if the cell line is of female or male origin and invivo of course male or female rat mouse pog etc. If it is not possible to account for this because of availability it should be clarified. Any place where gender would contribute to bias one is expected to discuss how they would overcome it or are limited.

MscaEnv wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:05 pm

Evaluation is definitely a clear rejection! Ranked are only guys above 70.

sdes wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:17 pm

MscaEnv wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:05 pm

Evaluation is definitely a clear rejection! Ranked are only guys above 70.

Help -- can someone tell us how you are finding this information? Enquiring (slighly insane at this point) minds need to know.

Bren wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:12 pm

Agreed, but if you are interviewing people and you haven't considered gender then I'm afraid you just wont be funded. Even if its not directly relevant to your research, they will look for stuff such as have you considered gender dynamics in the interview process. So, myself as a male, I put in stuff regarding how I will take gender into account when I meet people, locations, safety, etc. But, on the other hand, I'm a criminologist and I research perpetrators and victims, so maybe its more pronounced for me. I dunno, we will soon see I guess.

Dort wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 10, 2019 5:07 pm

To me this "gender issue" is very complicated. If I don't think it is relevant it is not, period. I honestly don't think that the reviewer's opinion is relevant on this matter. Why should I care about gender in my research if that's not my proposal? I'm dealing with human subjects, I'm going to interview a lot of people if I get the fellowship, but I really dont care if they are male or female, it is fairly irrelevant to what I'm proposing, to my methods, my conclusion... If 100% of my interviewees are women or 0% the results would be exactly the same. I'm from the left, but this insistence on forcing "social justice" where it is just irrelevant is pretty ridiculous.

Turpentine wrote: ↑

Sun Feb 10, 2019 7:14 am

This is really a grey area and they should be more specific about that. In my mind, gender doesn't really apply to cell lines or animals. In life science, it could become relevant maybe at the drug trial phase, and again, sex is the correct term here, not gender. I agree with previous comments that if they don't want to fund your proposal, they would always find something to say, and if they think you must get it, they wouldn't care if gender considerations are not essential to your research. I think we all have different opinions, and the experts who advised us don't all agree on these stuff. I really believe that common sense should prevail as our reviewers are also scientists (and humans) who are writing proposal and have to deal with these crappy formatting. Anyway, the mc grant seems really special as it has to fit with your career development and your needs. it's more about that apparently than pure scientific impact. That's my understanding of all this process, I can be wrong