“A scientific organization should be moulded to the needs of science, rather than constrained by organizational traditions”

On the 16th of May 2017 an article of Steven Hyman was released on the website of Nature. Hyman, director of the Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research at Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard, expresses his view on the way a research institution could be run.

Hyman states “most research institutes are essentially collections of independent laboratories, each run by principal investigators who head a team of trainees. However, for much of modern biomedical research that traditional organization has become limiting.”

In order to mould a scientific organization to the needs of science, Hyman prefers another type of organization, in which a central role is reserved for staff scientists – individuals charged with accomplishing large, creative and ambitious projects, including inventing the means to do so. These staff scientists work alongside faculty members and their teams in collaborative groups. “As the traditional barriers break down, science benefits,” says Hyman. “Staff scientists make organizations more productive through expert supports, creativity, added capacity and even mentoring in such matters as the best use of new technologies. The reverse is also true: faculty members help staff scientists to gain impact.”

Hyman finishes of by claiming ” altough academic labs have been and continue to be very productive, research institutions should look critically and creatively at their staffing. Institutions near an academic health centre or with significant needs for advanced technology could benefit from and sustain the careers of staff scientists. If adopted judiciously, these positions would enable institutions to take on projects of unprecedented scope and scale.”

Read the entire article on the website of Nature.

No Comments