New PI blues I

Because no one reads this blog, these thoughts are safe here. This is a bit of venting, because no one will read it. I need this outlet.

I right this infinitely more secure in life than I was a few months ago. There aren't questions of a pay check hanging over my head in the near future at the very least. The value of such security is inestimable from the other side.

I am an experimental biologist.  My research needs equipment. My institute has most of the large equipment I need for my research. I was allotted space and an office at the time of joining. The leadership and my colleagues are very supportive of any sort of procurement of small equipment. As soon as I joined the institute I put in indents for a string of things that I know I will need. It has been five months. I have a microwave (gift), a centrifuge and pipette set. 

I had hoped to get going in two months. Most of the things I need can reasonably be expected to be kept in stores at a Biology institution. But you follow the system as laid out for you. I am told the system is better than it was before I joined. I shudder at this thought at the end of five months here with a vacant lab.

The system is ostensibly designed to get the best prices for research funding through the most transparent manner, preferably favouring Indian manufacturers. The intent is noble. The implementation is grim. The rules surrounding procurement of materials depend on the kind, cost bracket and origin of the product. There is a government portal called GEM through which ALL procurement must necessarily be done. Materials can be procured outside GEM is they are not listed there. If GEM worked like Amazon, I'd be the most devoted user. It does not. a) Materials are available at half the GEM price outside. b) Certain reliably unreliable products on GEM are identical on paper to products I have relied on all my life. Because they are cheaper, one is forced make that purchase. The trouble with saving this quick buck is that the expensive pipeline of which the product will be a part, hinges on each product working reliably and all the time. The expensive man hours and materials amount to nothing, because we wanted to save a quick buck. c) If is often hard to find the product you are looking for just by searching for its name. One often finds it while searching for something completely unrelated. d) The portal constantly hangs. If anything, it is a horrible representation of a government endeavour. e) If ratings of both buyers and sellers of each other are to be believed, no one is happy.

So what was the point of GEM again?

One would imagine that administrators would be willing to support researchers in such a situation. Without breaking any rules, it is possible to put things in place so that research can pick up swiftly and run  smoothly. Some institutions I have been are blessed with enlightened administrators that consider themselves part of team trying to do research. The ones I have to interact with behave do their job to the letter. It is almost as thought the instate has been set up for them administer, rather than conducting research. I wish this would change.

Change is the only constant. Changing mandates though are a pain. The policy space is promoting revenue generation through technology by ALL research institutions. I have always been in basic research labs all my life and my research plan for which I was hired is fundamentally oriented. The way I see it, to build a rocket you need to explain the fall of an apple. Suddenly, apparently even institute of mathematical sciences is being told to generate revenue. It's like asking businessman to do research. One cannot bet on the quality of output. However, who knows, in twenty years from now, unicorns that are produced in these times may justify this pain overall.

The policy environment be as it may. The money being given to research labs is shrinking but the strings attached to them keep increasing, strengthening and stiffening. I am always baffled when administrators in agencies very proudly claim that they have disbursed funds, but the recipients say they haven't received them. Where does the money sit in such times?! Funds promised at the start of financial years arrive towards the end of it, and come hooked with the requirement of Utilisation certificates, or the funds must be returned. This smacks of administrators being able to say that funds reached recipients during the financial year, so recipients MUST provide UCs. To utilise the funds, they must be available and your own damn time intensive rules must be followed. The biggest exercise in futility is sending money just in time for it to be sent back, because you didn't give the recipient time to spend it. May be this is just another version of administrators being too busy doing their jobs to the letter, rather than facilitating the process which is the cause of their jobs' existence.

This was a rant. I am new. We will see how it goes.