Tuesday, March 31, 2015

This week's C&EN

Some interesting articles: 
  • I didn't know the first thing about PCSK9 inhibitors, but I feel a tiny bit more knowledgeable after reading Beth Halford's article.
  • I sure would like to know more about the recent judgment against glyphosate by IARC; I am most interested in hearing about the laboratory animal studies. (article by Britt Erickson)
  • Interesting article by Lisa Jarvis about Mike Varney, the new research head of Genentech. Anyone else intrigued by this statement? "The company has bolstered its “scientific track” to keep researchers engaged and well compensated. “If you want to stay on that track and build your career as a scientist,” Varney says, “then you don’t have to suffer financially by not becoming a manager.”" 
    • What does "bolstered" mean?
  • Nice summary of the current state of play between the House Science Committee and NSF by Andrea Widener. 
    • A scroll through the list of "problem" grants is interesting and boring at the same time. 
      • Not very many physical science grants identified for scrutiny, for sure. 

1 comment:

  1. At most places the disparity been the technical track vs business/management tracks are significant in spite of management claims of equivalency. I have no idea what the truth is yet when I hear such statements take bolstered probably means Genentech scientists who stay close to the lab can expect 60-70% of what typical MBA/Sales people get instead of the former 40-50% relative salary/advancement opportunities.