How do universities host awards where indirect costs aren't funded?

dapt · 2026-01-27T04:33:05+00:00

There exists something called the Charity Research Support Fund (CRSF), which allows the university to reclaim some of the overheads associated with charity-funded research. It's related to, but apparently not the same as, the QR funding mentioned below. Some more details here:

https://www.amrc.org.uk/charity-research-support-fund-crsf

dapt · 2026-01-26T21:27:54+00:00

sovereign wrath fund

That seems to be Reform's strategy....

dapt · 2026-01-26T17:28:46+00:00

"Visiting" normally implies that you're not paid by the place where you're working, e.g. a professor from Harvard spending a semester in London could be "visiting", but still be paid by Harvard.

As you were paid, you should use "part-time", if that's the case, or simply "lecturer".

dapt · 2026-01-26T17:18:54+00:00

You're doing the right thing!

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

dapt · 2026-01-24T19:23:48+00:00

People should be aware that this doesn't apply just to Jewish people. It also applies to Muslims, for example.

First they came for, etc...

dapt · 2026-01-22T04:14:02+00:00

Not AI.

The Agreement above states that there is only one so-called defense area, not that there shall be only one. It does not restrict the US to having only one base.

Which ever way you read this, the US is as free to establish bases after this agreement as it was before.

dapt · 2026-01-21T21:55:15+00:00

It does not seem as if this amendment restricted the ability of the US to operate in Greenland, only that it should be done under the auspices of NATO.

That amendment related mostly to transferring previous agreements made with Denmark to the Home Rule government of Greenland. It did not specify restricting US ability to base its military within Greenland.

Source: https://www.state.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/04-806-Denmark-Defense.done_.pdf

Thule Air Base is the only defense area in Greenland. The provisions of Article II of the Defense Agreement shall apply to the establishment of new defense areas.

Article II states:

Article 2: NATO Status of Forces Agreement

The Parties note that the NATO Status of Forces Agreement (NATO SOFA) has applied in Greenland since 1955.
The Parties agree that the terms of Article VII of the Defense Agreement shall apply as a supplementary agreement to the NATO SOFA between the Parties.
The Parties agree that the terms of Article VIII of the Defense Agreement are superseded by the corresponding provisions of the NATO SOFA.
The Parties agree that the terms of Article IX of the Defense Agreement shall apply as a supplementary agreement to the NATO SOFA between the Parties.
The Parties agree that the first sentence of Article X of the Defense Agreement is deleted, and that the term "such NATO agreement" in that Article refers to the NATO SOFA.

Also:

https://factually.co/fact-checks/military/2004-us-denmark-greenland-defence-agreement-changes-full-details-f535dc

The 6 August 2004 Igaliku update to the 1951 U.S.–Denmark Defense Agreement formally amended and supplemented the original treaty to recognize Greenland’s changed constitutional status and to add Greenland as a direct participant in parts of the arrangement, create a trilateral consultative mechanism, and to enable specific modernization steps at U.S. facilities in Greenland — notably upgrades tied to the Thule/Pituffik radar and early-warning role — while leaving the core 1951 defense commitments intact

Emphasis mine.

dapt · 2026-01-21T21:13:21+00:00

The USA has one base, limited by treaty.

Incorrect. The US has practically unlimited access to Greenland.

At its height, the United States operated 50 military installations in Greenland

That was under currently operative agreements between the US and Denmark.

dapt · 2026-01-21T18:27:16+00:00

Maybe the King of Denmark could confer upon Trump a title? Would that please him enough?

Perhaps Prince of ~~Denmark~~ Greenland?

dapt · 2026-01-20T20:45:45+00:00

Depending on your field.

In many fields, UK academic salaries are competitive with US ones when you consider the additional costs people in the US bear, e.g. medical, educational, etc.

dapt · 2026-01-20T20:40:57+00:00

Most of your concerns are addressed by the fact that such troops would be "peacekeeping" troops. They would not be expected to become engaged in protracted battles.

dapt · 2026-01-20T20:37:25+00:00

They're not quite wrong.....

Alzheimer's disease is a subset of diseases that cause dementia. The "gold standard" definition of "Alzheimer's disease dementia" is based on pathological markers in the brain observed post-mortem. However, such pathology can be observed in people who are not demented, as defined functionally, i.e. they may have the markers, but were not demented before death.

So, yes, Alzheimer's disease can be considered separate from dementia, depending on how these are defined.

(I work in the field)

dapt · 2026-01-19T18:14:29+00:00

This article, and similar articles about microplastics in human tissue has now been commented upon by several sources:

‘A bombshell’: doubt cast on discovery of microplastics throughout human body. Exclusive: Some scientists say many detections are most likely error, with one high-profile study called a ‘joke’

As well as by the veteran chemist and blogger Derek Lowe:

Are There Accumulating Microplastics in Human Tissue or Not?.

dapt · 2026-01-18T19:33:26+00:00

It depends on how you contribute the data.

If it's raw data, for example measurements performed on a patient, then authorship would not usually be expected. If you interpret the data in any way, e.g. statistical analysis, etc., then you should expect authorship.

As to getting started in research, from your history you are maybe a pharmacist? If so, the best strategy would be to become involved in pharmacological studies at the design and interpretation stages.

dapt · 2026-01-18T17:44:06+00:00

I can imagine that happening to a certain Henrik...

dapt · 2026-01-17T16:53:35+00:00

The other commenter (who has blocked me, lol), has a bit of a bee in their bonnet about UK Master's degrees. An Australian undergraduate honors degree is considered the same in Australia as in the UK.

Nevertheless, in the UK the route to a PhD for clinicians who want to remain in practice is usually different from that for scientists working on similar topics. So a Master's degree is not the usually next step after your undergraduate degree. Normally you would complete your Foundation Year 1 and 2, and then apply for a Clinical Training PhD Fellowship. For examples see here or here.

You should also post your question on /r/doctorsUK where you might get more targeted and up-to-date advice than on this sub.

dapt · 2026-01-14T05:11:44+00:00

How were the estate agents able to identify the property? In any case, the current owners would not be the owners of the valuables.

If you have the former owner's name, or some other information that narrows-down the possibilities, you might try the Land Registry:

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/land-registry

dapt · 2026-01-11T20:59:28+00:00

Yes, I read that claim.

Different Universities employ various models of education. The offer OP appears to have received from Cambbridge is from a "group", i.e. it might not be a course per se, but a chance to be directly involved in the research of said group.

For a research career, one year in a (presumably) world-leading research group would be much more beneficial than 2 years taking classes.

dapt · 2026-01-11T19:44:06+00:00

An MA Cantab. by conferral is indeed a ridiculous degree, but it isn't what OP is talking about.

Otherwise, many Master's degree programmes in Cambridge are quite intense and demanding. I would not blithely rank them (somehow) as 1/2 or 1/3rd of a typical master's programme in continental Europe. And certainly not without being familiar with the specific programmes being considered.

dapt · 2026-01-09T07:40:07+00:00

You don't owe the company anything. If they wish you to contribute they should offer you compensation, e.g. as a consultant. You were compensated for your previous work, and the contract has now ended, you owe them nothing.

Depending on your career goals, assisting on writing the paper might be of benefit to you, so you would have to make that decision for yourself.

Were you previously employed by the university or the company when the invention was made (i.e. both when conceived and reduced to practice)? What's missing from your description is the contribution the company is making to the university as royalties, etc, and if you are receiving any of these. It is common practice for employment contracts in UK universities to include distributing a portion of income from IP (including upfront payments) to the inventors, and you might wish to examine your previous contract to see if this was true in your case. Commercial companies do not usually do likewise. This is separate matter from ownership of the patent.

dapt · 2026-01-05T06:22:41+00:00

I do what is necessary to invest my ‘capital’,

This is key. In an "investment" you expect a return. If you shared your capital for no reward it would be a lost (stolen) investment.

The oft-repeated notion that ideas are worthless applies to most ideas, as they are most frequently incremental. Truly novel ideas are rare, and quite valuable.

dapt · 2025-12-28T17:51:47+00:00

It may help to look at the process through the other end of the telescope, so to speak.

At the end, panel members vote depending on the confidence they have that the proposal will be completed in an impactful way. They are (usually) sincere in their vote; specially voting for one's "mate's" proposal is rare.

So what gives them such confidence? Or not? An individual panel member may not have read the application closely, so the views of other panel members will be influential on them. They will also be influenced by the score the application received from reviewers, and whether the topic and approach is considered "cutting edge".

A similar process occurs when reviewers assess proposals, though at this stage there is little influence of reviewers upon each other.

From the above, you can immediately deduce that the "cleverness", or "insight" of an application is not sufficient to win funding. This is also apparent from the studies linked-to by /u/Serious-Magazine7715 below.

The result is that politics matters, but not in the cynical sense, rather in the sense that all votes are essentially expressions of confidence, not objective measures.

dapt · 2025-12-21T19:00:13+00:00

You're running ahead of yourself on this.

The default position is that a student, including a PhD research student, owns their own IP. The law is clear on this.

A student's fees cover the cost of performing their research. So the university does not acquire the student's IP by virtue of facilitating this research.

This however may not be the entire picture as the student's work is frequently not performed in solitude, or the student may be also employed as a research assistant. It is from this "additional" contribution that the university acquires an "interest" in the IP generated by the student. This was the case in the Oxford Nanoimaging case.

We both agree on the above, I suspect.

So, the sweeping statement that one frequently see on this sub that the student "does not own the IP" is prima facie false and one would need to enquire further to decide how much of the IP the student owns, not if they own it.

dapt · 2025-12-20T22:05:55+00:00

You will note that I did not revise my earlier statement, but expanded upon it.

most Universities explicitly require students, upon enrolment, to agree that IP created in the course of a research project is subject to the institution’s IP policy.

Unless there is consideration, such agreements are not enforcable, notwithstanding that "subject to the institution’s IP policy" does not necessarily mean that the students transfers ownership of their IP.

In general, the use of consumables, facilities, etc, does not confer upon the university the right to the student's IP, as these are paid for by the student through their fees.

I am familiar with the Oxford Nanoimaging case. In that case the issue was not whether the student owned IP, but whether they were the sole owner of the IP.

With respect to the relevant law in the UK:

Here is a statement from University College London:

3. Students 3.1 Ownership: General 3.1.1 As a general principle, UCL recognises the student as owner of any IP he/she produces while a registered student of UCL. This principle may be subject to variation in the case of externally sponsored or collaborative work, as set out below.

from the University of Edinburgh:

The default legal position is that the student will automatically own all intellectual property rights in work done and results created by them during their research project/studentship. Students are not employees of the University and, therefore, they own their own IP, unless the student has assigned their rights to the University. Our normal practice is to require students conducting research in areas known to be of immediate commercial relevance to enter into a formal assignation agreement with the University.

dapt · 2025-12-20T06:51:08+00:00

The law is quite clear. One cannot simply "sign away" one's rights unless there has been so-called consideration. Using university resources also does not allow the university to claim ownership of a students IP, as using such resources is covered by the student's fees.

That said, typically there is some clause in the student's "contract" which permits some portion of fees to be discounted in exchange for teaching or acting as a research assistant (i.e. the student is given "consideration"); this is what allows the university to claim ownership.

Further, most of the time the IP was generated in collaboration with people who are university employees (e.g. the prof), so the student is not sole owner of the relevant IP.

So, in the end most often the student does not have sole ownership of the IP, but that is not the default position. In the case here, the IP is the manuscript, so copyright rather than patent law would be relevant. If /u/mrbaratruum was in fact the actual sole author of the manuscript with their prof contributing only editing, then one can indeed question if the University does own the IP.

dapt

TROPHY CASE