What areas of research are most relevant?

Who will you be at least in your specialty? All but one of the topics fall outside the scope of entomology, and two fall outside the scope of zoology. Obviously, if you are a microbiologist, then options 4 and 5 are fine. If not, then options 4 and 5 are out of the question. Microbes - in general, in your understanding, who will they be? What kind of plants are you going to protect and from whom? Why look up to Europe and the United States? Those issues that they are trying to solve, most likely, will be solved there (if this is even possible at the current stage of scientific and technological progress), do not catch up. It is better to dig in a new direction, which the bourgeoisie has not yet thought of.

Who will you be at least in your specialty?

By the way, the university specialty "Biological plant protection" does not divide a specialist into an entomologist and a " non-entomologist "(microbiologist). The curriculum includes microbiology mycology nematology entomology

Here are the most cited works on the biological method of plant protection over the past 5 years:

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

Well, here's something like this need

Does any department train such specialists? Or is it not a biological institute at all, but an agricultural one? IMHO, to be a good specialist at the same time in the fields of virology, bacteriology, mycology, nematology, acarology, entomology, plant physiology, agronomy and chemistry (and this is the minimum level that pops up when I say "plant protection"), you need to have well, very outstanding intellectual makings of the scale of Aristotle, Leonardo da Vinci or Lomonosov. But if you are looking for a topic of work not for yourself personally, but for a whole team of various specialists, then this is a completely different matter. But then the legitimate question arises: what do your employees want themselves? Usually, every mature researcher has a fairly large reserve within which further work will be most comfortable and fruitful. And if you switch it to something completely new and alien for it, even if it is three times promising, it can turn out complete garbage instead of a useful result. Although, if your goal is to get a grant for development, then perhaps this is not essential...

However, your questions are formulated in such a way that it is not possible to answer them. I can make a list that is anthological in importance and absurdity:

1. Cancer treatment.
2. Life extension.
3. Cheap energy.
4. Wastewater treatment.
5. Recycling of garbage..
..

All of them relate to improving the quality of human life on planet Earth. On which of these problems did the bourgeoisie break off more copies? Complain to our anonymous team of life improvers to earn a grant

Does any department train such specialists? Or is it not a biological institute at all, but an agricultural one?

I have attached the files - you can view them here

IMHO, to be a good specialist at the same time in the fields of virology, bacteriology, mycology, nematology, acarology, entomology, plant physiology, agronomy and chemistry (and this is the minimum level that pops up when I say "plant protection"), you need to have well, very outstanding intellectual makings of the scale of Aristotle, Leonardo da Vinci or Lomonosov.

File/s:



 ________________________________________.pdf

size: 1.26 mb
number of downloads: 194









 ________35.04.04_15_____________________.pdf

size: 2.11 mb
number of downloads: 308









 _________110400.62________________.pdf

size: 292.01 k
number of downloads: 160

Clearly, it's still agricultural. Obviously, it has its own specifics of scientific work, which is unfamiliar and incomprehensible to me. Nevertheless, your very approach to science based on the principle of "tell me what grants are available in the post-Soviet space, and also tell me what topic is best to work on in order to beat them out" will seem to me fundamentally flawed in terms of the objective effectiveness of such work.

Clearly, it's still agricultural. Obviously, it has its own specifics of scientific work, which is unfamiliar and incomprehensible to me. Nevertheless, your very approach to science based on the principle of "tell me what grants are available in the post-Soviet space, and also tell me what topic is best to work on in order to beat them out" will seem to me fundamentally flawed in terms of the objective effectiveness of such work.

Agriculture is not only a fundamental science, but also an applied one. In applied science, supply is determined by demand, and not just by white spots in the knowledge of Nature. Therefore, it is necessary to know what is in demand in the market of research works in the field of applied entomology and acarology and, depending on this, offer your intellectual and labor force in the grant market. Grants are allocated depending on the market situation - on what the government is interested in (in the case of basic science) or industry (in the case of grants provided by private investors for applied research). I personally, for example, would like to receive a grant for the realization of my interests in basic science. But who asks me - I am forced to do what is invested in according to market requests

This post was edited by ihlindham - 08.01.2017 18: 56

Why do you need science at all? Go into business, I think that with your specialty there should be no problems with finding clients.