Nominated by
- Mads Bengtsen, Researcher, Department of Biosciences, MN
- Xiang Yi Kong, Postdoctoral Fellow, Institute of Clinical Medicine, MED
- Andreas Våvang Solbrå, PhD Candidate, Department of Physics, MN
- Ane Charlotte Christensen, PhD Candidate, Institute of Basic Medical Sciences, MED
- Cathrine Elisabeth Fagernes, Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Biosciences, MN
Election platform
Since I first became a part of the UiO-system in 2004, I have obtained a good shear of experience of how politics at the university has developed, first as a bachelor-, master-, and PhD-student, and now as a fixed-term employee. Based on this experience, I have some matters I especially want to promote that I think is important to sustain and further develop outstanding science:
- I want to return the management of UiO back to the scientific staff. The power has in my opinion over the last decades been relocated towards an engaged leadership/administration taking important decisions rather than the scientific staff. An example is the ongoing issue of whether the principal should be hired or elected.
- In the continuation of the first point, I want the fixed-term employees to take a larger part in the decision-making processes. It is often we that withhold the knowledge to make the best decisions in issues concerning us. Sadly, I have experienced several projects that could have been more cost effective and still give better results if we were involved in the process.
- I want a larger degree of transparency and freedom in research. Present your data as they are, rather than selling them as something they are not. If this is to work in praxis, researchers need a larger degree of freedom to plan and carry out independent research. This again requires that the political management that is affected by political/social trends and prestige is strongly reduced. We do not need political decisions going in the opposite direction of scientific recommendations in academia, as there are enough examples of in other parts of society.
- I want to decrease the money and time used on bureaucracy and administration. The portion of administrative staff has steadily increased compared to the portion of scientific staff. There is also a trend that the decision-making is moved from the scientific staff and on to the administration. Enormous sums is today used on deciding who gets funding, without it having a notable effect on the research quality. At the same time, the scientific staff uses more and more time on administrative tasks and on trying to get research funding through intricate and very time-consuming application processes. Time that could have been spent on research.
- I want to work for true equalisation rather than impairment among the fixed-term employees in an attempt to increase the portion of women in the permanent scientific staff. It is not right to give female PhD-students and postdocs a number of advantages in order to give them a head start in the fight for permanent positions. In that sense, present male PhD-students and postdocs is now paying the price as an innocent third-part. There should instead be more focus on taking measures against permanent staff deliberately suppressing female fixed-term employees.
- PhD students should have the opportunity to choose whether they want to fulfil todays 30 study-points demand, or if they want to work specifically on their PhD-project instead. Many do not benefit from these courses, as it is difficult to offer courses specific enough and at an academic level high enough to meet what is needed by the students.
Background
- Bachelor in Molecular Bioscience, Department of Biosciences, UiO, 2007
- Master of Molecular Bioscience, Department of Biosciences, UiO, 2009
- PhD in physiology, Department of Biosciences, UiO, 2015
- Postdoc, Department of Biosciences, UiO, 2015-
- Winner of Molecular Life Science Communication price, UiO, 2011
- Board member of the Norwegian Physiological Society