Boud Roukema boud w
Śro, 17 Gru 2003, 16:15:45 CET

  We just had a long discussion regarding possibilities for the next
grant proposal. Here is what i remember and understood in the discussion.

* We haven't yet got a reply from Sebastian.

* It's not obvious how easy or wise it would be to include Jarek,
given that: OCRA has its own funding, so including stuff relevant
to OCRA might be used as an argument against the grant proposal; and
Jarek is not yet a PhD student, and has not yet decided to do a PhD
in Torun, or decided between TCfA and CAMK.

* In both cases, there are still a few weeks for discussion (but not much

* From our previous proposal:

we had one referee very positive, two quite negative. One of the
negatively commenting referees failed to understand how AGNs can be
used to test topology, but the other simply felt that AGNs and topology
are separate fields and should not be combined.

* The AGN evolution observations of motyl + magda + andrzej together
make a very tight knit project and would be self-sufficient for a grant
proposal alone.

* It is important to maximise the chances of the grant proposal being
accepted in order to get the money.

* There was consensus that

(1) We should have AGN observations as the main focus of the proposal
(not topology).

(2) That given (1), andrzej should be PI since he is much, much, much
more experienced in AGN observations than boud.

(3) We still have some time (e.g. till 7 Jan) to decide further basic
questions before getting heavily into the paperwork, printing,
signing, etc.

* The two most likely scenarios are:

(4a) andrzej + magda + motyl -> theme = AGN observations - birth/death/HYMORs
[(4b) boud + bartek either
 (4b.1) make an independent grant proposal on another theme at the same time
 (4b.2) wait till the following grant period (Jul 2004) to avoid the chance
of the grant committee creating bad feeling by giving a grant to one "group"
(or neither) and not the other.


(5) andrzej + magda + motyl + boud + bartek -> theme = AGN
observations - birth/death/HYMORs - plus theoretical tools to use
these to test AGN evolution hypotheses in terms of a cosmologically
realistic galaxy evolution model, including sensitivity to different
hypotheses on how the non-baryonic dark matter particles behave:

general discussion (please modify, correct, add links):

ArFus GPL software package:

i personally think the idea of us "competing" against each other for
basic research funding is ridiculous. The history of science
constantly shows that it's only a long term point of view (50 years or
so) which can seriously judge which science is best or most relevant,
and even this generally oversimplifies the fact that most of science
is integrated and that both the independent cross-checking by many
scientists, not just by "superior" scientists, and also the high profile,
"breakthroughs", are just as important for science as a whole to progress.

In any case, competition became impractical with special relativity
and the atom bomb.

See also:'s_dilemma

However, for the moment the Polish astro community, and the Polish
research community in general, is not well enough organised (nor would
have a common point of view) to shift the grant system to something
more intelligent and cooperative.

So we need to make a decision by early/mid January.

My feeling is that we have a good chance of coming to a decision by
"formal consensus" on the above proposals (4) and (5) (or modified versions
of them) at another meeting during early/mid January.

This means something like:
 - we are clear on what the different proposals are (see above)
 - any of us (whether mgr or dr or nearly-hab ;) can *block* any of
the proposals, but can only do so on the basis of what she/he thinks
is a fundamental reason (e.g. science and/or money), not based on
(e.g.) seniority or some unstated intuition

("formal" doesn't mean bureaucratic, it means that we are clear about
what we are saying and how we decide)

i personally don't have objections to any of the options, except that i might
block (4b.1) unless people think that there would be a good chance of
two "competing" proposals being simultaneously accepted.


PS: please corrrect, comment, whatever.

On Tue, 16 Dec 2003, Andrzej Marecki wrote:

> > BTW(2) - Motyl proposes that we work on the grant proposal tomorrow
> > afternoon (Wed 17 Dec) @radio astronomy.
> Let's say at 13:00. Is that OK for everyone?
> A.

Więcej informacji o liście Cosmo-torun