Biologists and Chemists

Another one from the crypt.

There's been a few posts in various blogs regarding chemicals that Chemists won't want to work with. Things are different in molecular biology and cell biology labs - hell, we pH tris base by using fuming 11M HCl (which I still object to, I think it should be diluted to at least non-fuming concentrations. Like, 6M). After reading Derek's post (more recent one here - just the name of chlorine trifluoride makes me scared...), I went and checked our lab (including the poisons cabinet) just to see what was lying around.

I'm not going to talk about the bottle of mercury, various steroids, and common antibiotics which are kept in the poisons cabinet. I didn't know that kanamycin had a skull mark, but there you go, chucking 'em on to bugs.

There's that acrylamide stuff which you make PAGE gels from, which is a known neurotoxin.
We also use loads of sodium azide, as a general antibiotic (and anti-fungal chemical in buffers and stuff).
I use a lot of NaF in my assays, as a phosphatase inhibitor. Now that was one compound my chemistry-trained protein biochemist quaked when talking. But it's harmless, really...

Networking

I was looking through some stuff and found posts which I wrote ages ago, but forgot to finish and post. So here they are.

Following on from DrugMonkey's recent post, specifically the comment by co-author PhysioProf, on networking.

The key to overcoming natural reticence about schmoozing is to fully
embrace the realization that people want other people to be interested in them.

Which, I have to say, is the easiest, and the best, method.
I won't go as far to say the "only".

I am not the most outgoing, or personable person, to talk to. Talking to others doesn't come naturally to me. I had to learn how to socialize.I still make mistakes (as I see them) - I do jump a lot between topics, and sometimes I start a sentence and am talking about tangents at the end. I am really not an easy person to have a conversation with, especially when I have had a pint.

And then, I learnt that the easiest way to get to know a person is to be interested in them. And not superficially. You need to be sincere. People can tell insincerety from their gut.

So the only way to do that, is to be truly interested in other people.


Also, most people like being listened to. And I mean, listen. A lot of people don't know what it is to listen - nowadays, there is a premium on how much noise you can produce, instead of listening. Being a good listener is so much more worthwhile than being a good yakker.


The best way of networking is not to think about networking. I suggest, initially, that you become interested in the person you are talking to.

Funny.

Just after I posted the post below about the pork song, I hear that the Red Sox signed Bartolo Colon. Yes, the 5 ft 11 in, 245 lb Bartolo Colon. Immaculate timing?

A bit o' laugh

There is something wrong when you get this Flash animation as a second proper entry when you put in "pork" in a Google search (UK version).
I think this is a great hit from Weebl. They are back to form now, "Pork" is up there with "Magical Trevor" and "Kenya". I can see this animation and song being picked up by the national farmers' union (or whoever is the biggest pig farmers' union) to advertise the greatness of pork.

lyrics:

Pork, it's the meat of kings!
it's made from pig,
try it with onion rings

Pork sure goes with everything,
'cause it's made from swine,
and swine sure tastes fine

Just bring some to the picnic baby,
you know you want to stuff it in my hamper
But please put it in some tupperware
'cause I don't wanne be a porky chancer

Let's talk about pork
converse about meat
Veggies beat wedgies
'cause meat can't be beat

Ham and bacon, you should taste them,
I know it's surprising, but it's so appetizing

Bo-ring!

At the gym pool yesterday, I saw 4 pieces of white chewing gum (chewed) on the bottom of the pool.

What, don't people chew bubblegum anymore?

I don't know what was worse. The fact that people actually try to chew gum when they are doing sport where breathing is like, life or death. Or that I found it all funny and not disgusting (until I came home and told OH about it).

Dirty word

I'm doing some catching up on blog reading, after coming back from self-imposed exile from blog-land. And came up on this post over at PropterDoc about sacrifices we make in order to be an academic. There is a link to the original post over at Squadratomagico, within that post too.

I don't get why people like using the word "sacrifice" so much.
It's such a....an emo word.
"Choice" is a much better word.

I guess, as a non-native English speaker, the word "sacrifice" has a noble, sometimes negative, connotation for me. (I am not saying that as a justification on the meaning of the word - non-native speakers can have a limited understanding of the breadth and scope of a word, and I think that applies to me here.)
And choosing a job in academia is not as noble as, say, taking a bullet for a comrade. That goes even if you are searching for a cure for cancer.

Two. Sacrifice, to me, also implies that there is a "higher" or better way of living. Which is a bit shit for you, if you think about it. You're admitting that you are living in a lower state, while you have the possibility of attaining a higher state.

Three. Using that word also has a self-indulgence, in the sense that "I am suffering all of this and sacrificing this and that, for a job in the Ivory Tower". Which we all know is a lie. I mean the Ivory Tower.

Choice, I can live with.
The word puts the responsibility solely on you. You chose the way you are living now. It also means you have the choice to see it through or not. To change jobs or not.
To me, the word has a positive connotation.
Funny how some words are like that.


The post made me think, really, because I was watching the people around me - I know bankers and journalists and consultants and accountants. And it made me instantly think about how much money they are making, and how (I perceive that) they are changing the business world. I am shallow about materialistic stuff, it's just the way I grew up.
But then, I thought about what I do (or did). I actually like doing what I do. I got into science because I liked it. I stayed with it, partly because I am lazy, partly because I couldn't think of alternatives, but I am happy that I did what I did. I might not be the best, but I enjoy doing what I do.
So I guess that makes me lucky, but it was a choice I made. Not a sacrifice.

Let sleeping tigers lie?

I've been quiet for a while, partly because I wasn't here! Anyway, I have been a bit low, and doing too much thinking really. Unemployment sucks.

I went to a school reunion recently, and met up with a few people from my year (few being the operative word there). Most of them were in banking and finance. No, I don't understand what they do, but they do have lots of words like "analyst" and "consultant" in their job description. And anyway, talking about work was not the main point of the conversation for me. Although working in a medical field made my explanations easier. I advocate working to cure for disease, if only it makes describing your job much more easier.

Anyway I digress.
You would think that for people in their mid-30's to be a little more intresting to talk to, but not always. There are people who like to rehash old stereotypes (the cool people and the nerds - I was obviously proudly in the latter category), and people who are just plain rude (and out to "network"). There were highlights too, like talking to a guy I haven't met in over 15 years (not that we used to talk at all, but it was still interesting to talk).

Maybe it is the fact that a lot has happened in the last 10 years for me personally. Maybe it is just that I analyse too much, including human behaviour. But I came out of that with more things to ruminate on than I could. The cud is festering.

This isn't made any easier by the fact that I am getting old. People I went to school with, they have a proper job with a proper wage packet. Mine isn't bad (wage packet), but it isn't permanent, and certainly doesn't feel like a proper job. Actually, the funny thing is, when you say to a person outside of academic research with the line
"Oh, I work in a University as a research scientist"
it doesn't sound bad. Until you talk to another person who is a postdoc.

I work mostly with guys in the 20's, and that also makes me feel old.

Then, I went on to look up what some people from my PhD era were doing. They are either working in Big Pharma (as some kind of director or another), or running an important centre in some big name hospital over at the States. Ok, they were a few years older than me. But still.

Anyway, it all makes me feel inadequate.


And this is where this whiny rant stops.

Because, I was thinking (whilst doing the washing up), at least I know what I want to do in the next 5 years. Maybe not in the next few months, but definitely by the age of 40 I know where I will be. I know what I want to do, sort of. If I can do what I think I can, great. And I also have a Plan B. And I'll keep an eye out for opportunities.
Life is good.

Confidence

After seeing 27 comments on FSP's post, I've added a bit and brought the post to the top - as I commented and posted a link here.

Again, over at FemaleScienceProfessor, there is an interesting post regarding confidence. Or lack of.

I know a person, exactly as FSP mentions, who has a "colossal lack of confidence". I put it in brackets, as I am not sure whether it is or not (and I don't know the person very well - I have observed her a few times, which led me to the conclusion). I think the person does not know how to take criticism, or understand that there are alternative ways of doing things.
Everything has to be done her way, in her time. Obviously that is not the way things work in a lab where you have other people working beside you.

Anyway, going back to the original topic of confidence. The question asked was:

Can a lifetime of lack of confidence be overcome during graduate school?

Personally, I think it is hard to overcome that during graduate school. Why? Because you are still considered a trainee by all accounts - and that includes taxation in this country. Being in graduate school is only slightly different from being an undergraduate. There are a lot of things you can get away with, which (in my view) you shouldn't or couldn't when you are properly working. Having said that, being a postdoc isn't much different sometimes. You just pay tax.

Anyway, let me change tack here and talk about a practial solution to change.

FSP mentions about coping mechanisms. One very good coping mechanism is disengaging your self-worth from your job. If you consciously think that criticisms to your work, has nothing to do with you as a person, it makes life a hell of a lot easier. This disengagement is crucial if you want to make working life easier for yourself. And for me, it is something that has come along with time.

Another thing, which goes hand in hand with the above point, is to understand that these are other people you are dealing with. They have their own agenda. They are different to you. This is something that is hard to really grasp, and really appreciate, when you are in your early-20's. Hell, it was, for me.
So the next time a postdoc is criticising your experimental procedure, you can think that it's all your fault, or:
(1) the postdoc just doesn't like you because of the way you dress, or
(2) the other half of the said postdoc is cheating on him/her and he/she just found out, or
(3) the postdoc just had his paper rejected, or
(4) the postdoc just lost a fellowship he was writing due to a computer fault, or
(5) the postdoc couldn't sleep last night because his next door neighbour was playing music too loud.
i.e., it is absolutely, not about YOU.


As FSP mentions, there may not be much that an advisor (or even a friendly postdoc, i.e. someone senior but helpful) can do. It sounds cruel to say, but sometimes such people with extreme lack of confidence can be thought of as being overly concerned with themselves. They are too self-conscious. They cannot, and sometimes do not, see themselves as being part of a society - it is just them, against others. And they often see the others as enemies.

In a way, they are consumed with themselves, which you can call a type of narcissistic trait without the ego or self-love. A negative narcissist (I'm sure there's a psychological term for it, but hell if I know).

The problem here is that such people do not listen to advice easily, because advice given to them is an "external" input. Something inside has to trigger a reaction - they have to have an inner reason to want to make life easier for themselves.
I've noticed that the comments for the post over at FPS is full of people suggesting counseling - which I think is the best way to go. I think the student in question will respond well to counseling, which is basically talking and analyzing about yourself to someone without their own agenda (but to help you).

But the point is, all of them wanted to do something about it. And the key is, the want to change must come from the student him/herself. FSP can help by letting the student know that his/her attitude/personality will not be helpful in his/her scientific career. She can help by suggesting counseling. But whether the student listens to her or not, is up to the student.
And that is where FSP, or any other person's influence stops.


What else?

The quickest way to change a person is to have something catastrophic happen to them - to shock their way out. Something that makes them evaluate their ways, their habits, their life to an extent. The person will not change overnight, but hat something will make them recognize the "problem".
Which is stupid, because a catastrophic occurance cannot be planned, and the person cannot know when, where, what or if it will happen. And it will be painful to them, because...well, it is catastrophic.

Otherwise, only time and change of circumstance (such as graduation) will help.

So wrong.

To be able to go jogging in February with a t-shirt and capri, when you share more with amphibians and reptiles when it comes to dislike of cold temperature.

Anyway, I forgot that I 've been blogging for 4 years, at the end of January. That's a frigging long time. And this happens to be the 600th posting.

As Fatboy Slim says, "You've Come a Long Way Baby".

But instead of linking to Spike Jonze's pisstake vid, I shall link to Christopher Walken's finest screen moment. Not.

For those of you interested in what Walken himself has to say about the vid, I recommend watching the DVD "The work of director Spike Jonze". I'm pretty sure he did the commentary about the whole shoot and stuff.

Is there a man in the house?

The other day, I was talking to TB about men.
She works in an office full of men, and none of them, including her boss, have balls. This came about because we were talking about men not being like DCI Gene Hunt (from Life on Mars), and that there weren't more men who wouldn't take crap.

Now, this post isn't about me persuading you readers that macho, sexist, politically incorrect men are the way to go. It is more like...well, women are the new men.

You see, me and TB were comparing notes on the pathetic men-kind we (sometimes) meet at our workplace. She was telling me that some men on her team were just slackers, and terrible gossips, and whinge and whine about the work and people, without doing anything or getting anything done. And that TB actually has to tell them off to do work, because her male boss was too much of a chicken. Apparently he hates confrontation.
I was telling her my stories about the GQ boy (all brawn and pretty but no brains - and he was a grad student...), and Mr.Strauss. God, don't get me started.

TB and myself, we are both pragmatic, "get things done" kind of girls. There is always that greater good (as in, get the work done) at the back of our minds. If there is a problem, we can solve it - if we can't, we'll get in touch with someone who will. We both hate sitting around and complaining about things when you can be doing something to fix it.

Is this why Gene Hunt is so feted? Because he gets things done, and he oozes confidence?

ADD?

There's a post about ADD over at FemaleScienceProfessor.

I certainly do not have ADD, but I do have a short attention span (but still longer than the guy FSP mentions). The biggest problems I have as a scientist is in reading and writing. Doing experiments are fine, sitting in front of a reaction that takes 30 minutes is okay. But reading and writing for any length of time bores me.

With the reading and writing of a manuscript, I get away with doing a maximum of 20 - 30 minutes at a time. Then rewarding myself with something unrelated...like walking around the lab and chatting to people. Making tea is a bad idea, because my calculations tell me that at that rate I will be drinking 10 cups of tea a day. I also read my emails, or dare a quick look at the daily news.

Reading is the worst. I can never read papers from head to toe. I have to literally force myself to concentrate on the paper. How do I do that? By reading relatively quickly, and forcing myself to concentrate and gather information. And doing it for a short time, like 10 - 15 minutes.
The other thing is, to have a notepad ready. I'm skittish when it comes to thoughts, and I digress easily. So to prevent that whilst I am reading, I need to take random notes down. I get ideas whilst reading, and that will derail me, which means I have to re-read, i.e. waste of time.

I have no problems with doing repetitive things (like pipetting 90 samples). Things with hands, I am okay with. It is just that when it comes to mental things....ugh.

Irrational fears

Was reading this over at HDPCBlog, and coupled with the recent post about image manipulation using Photoshop, I started wondering about irrational fears or things you do because you were told to.

I have set ways of manipulating images. Let's take a scanned western film.
I always do any manipulation, which is normally just contrast and brightness, throughout the whole image. If I can, I do not cut and paste lanes (I rather repeat the western to show what I want to show). I like to have an idea of the lanes, so I never manipulate until I get a totally white background. I always leave at least 2 times the thickness of the band, above and below the band itself. Not to mention I rotate the film (normally a few degrees clockwise or counter-clockwise) to make the bands close to horizontal. I berate people who don't publish horizontal bands, if you are a scientist, you should be intelligent enough to do that before finishing a figure.

And I don't change the gamma correction value from 1.0, which is the irrational bit.

I can understand things like contrast and brightness to be applied to the whole image. But I never thought about what gamma correction is. I was told by my previous boss that it should be kept at 1.0, and not to change it, as then it will not be linear. Judging by the equation in Wiki, it is a power law so it makes sense not to deviate from 1.
I never got my head around the whole concept, but I just believe it. I don't know why, it's irrational, but I still do it. I'd feel more comfortable if I got down and researched it a bit. Maybe that'll be my aim for this week.

Out o' the closet

The other day, when I was sitting in my office and eating lunch before "reminding" ex-Boss about my current situation, he walked in and saw me reading this entry over at Kyle's blog.

Now, the situation is that my ex-Boss has me pegged for this postdoc position, as it has some interesting Chemistry in it (his words). I think he thinks that I will think that the project will be more interesting for someone like me, as I have a finer understanding of chemical structures, and there are some novel compounds I get to test out.

So I would like to think he was...impressed?
I mean, I was looking at a chemical structure whilst eating my lunch.

Western blots and scanners

So I still develop my westerns by hand, and I end up with numerous pieces of film that I put in my results file. It's all nice and noted down, and I have no problem whipping out a film in seconds, if (for example) my boss wants to see the crucial blot.

Now, that's all well, but in this era of electronic everything, publishers want one of those 300 dpi scanned TIFF images.
Here's a dilemma. I hate TIFF files, because they are so damn big. I normally scan, and just save as a jpeg file. If I need a higher resolution TIFF file, I need to re-scan the thing. Normally, that is no problem, but it is when you are running out of time.

The other thing is Microsoft's inevitable invasion into, well, everything. I tend to use Word for writing, Excel for general graphs (I don't do a lot of statistics so Excel is okay), and Powerpoint for presentations and general figures. Which is useful for lab meetings, but poses a problem come publishing time.
No, I don't have Adobe Illustrator or CorelDraw, which I would rather learn to use if it means hassle-free figure preparation for articles. If I had choice and control over my grant spending, I would probably buy it, and do all my figures for it. But we don't have it. I think for my next job, I will buy it just to make life easier for myself.


Speaking of scanning in films, I do mine through Adobe Photoshop (import through a TWAIN driver). I personally can't imagine anyone not using some fancy graphic software like Photoshop to manipulate scanned images - I like having as much control as possible when it comes to lightening a dark film.
But Mr.Strauss doesn't do that. I remember a presentation which he did, where he presented a western blot that was beyond comprehension. First, the western was overexposed to an extent that the bands from consecutive lanes were bleeding into one another. Second, everything else was white. His point was that the fragment of protein was actually expressed, and as it was a qualitative blot, it didn't matter how "bad" the western was.
Personally, I don't like that - if a film ends up being overexposed, I always try and get a lower exposure when I am doing the ECL. If the ECL reagent is used up, and you get a burn out of the band, then I actually re-do the ECL. All for a pretty picture.
Also, I dislike not seeing the faint background of the lanes. I prefer to see some semblance of a lane, either in the shape of the band or a "gray lane". I hate those perfectly shaped bands - so fake.

It transpires that Mr.Strauss does not use any fancy graphics package, but the bog standard scanner software that comes with the scanner. Not good, when you are talking science.
Anyway, this story of Mr.Strauss and the scanner is for another day, when I will further elaborate the snobbishness of myself when it comes to computers....

ocular dominance and handedness

I was randomly thinking about snipers, as you do, and this naturally led to scopes and shoulders.

So if you are a right-handed person, you pull the trigger with your right hand. If you have a rifle, the butt is on your right shoulder. So you aim using your right eye. If you are using a scope, it will be on your right eye.

Anyway, in that sense (of handedness and ocular dominance), I am cross dominant. That sounds slightly kinky. Well, I am right-handed as most people are, but my dominant eye is my left eye. So does that automatically make me bad as a sniper, unless I trained myself to be comfortable with my right eye? Which, by the way, makes sense, as most weapons are made for right-handed people.

I guess that for handguns, it doesn't matter which hand you hold it and which eye you shoot it with, as you have some flexibility in the position of the firearm when in front of your body.

Food for thought.


BTW, I use my left ear to listen to the phone. The simple reason is, that you can hold the phone in your left hand, whilst taking notes with your right. And if you pick up the phone with your left hand, you don't have to switch hands halfway through (hence saves time).
I wasn't like that before. I changed when I read something about taking notes over the phone, when I was a teenager, and stuck with it since. So I guess I am naturally right-eared, but have taught myself to be left-eared. Now, when someone gives me an earpiece to listen to, I put it to my left ear as I have had more experience listening to something using my left ear.

Do mathematicians wonder about numbers?

I like watching the various CSI series, only so that I can pick on the laboratory techniques that the actors use. Like, they don't have good tip control on a gilson.

So I am wondering, do mathematicians watch Numb3rs and pick holes in the maths involved?

I'm getting old

And I am maturing. I was thinking about this yesterday, when reading other blogs by students and postdocs. And realized that I don't particularly share their views anymore. I forget what negative emotion I was feeling a few years ago, regarding....well, everything, when I was less mature.

All this comes about because of this post over at DrugMonkey.
It made me think that he's right, I agree with all of it, and does this mean I am turning into an adult (finally)?
What I get from DM's post, is that students and postdocs are arrogant in assuming what they know, and how much. And they don't understand that it is not just about science. And why? Because they have been fed the bullshit for so long, and being scientists they just implicitly trust what is being fed.


Speaking of arrogance, the recent post over at YoungFemaleScientist made me ponder too. I am thinking that in science, it is very easy to mistake a posturing arrogance with confidence. It might be that people don't know the difference - confidence is when you can say no (I might add, without feeling guilty), when you can admit you don't know certain things, and when you are comfortable with it.
In that sense, the world of science is like a pack of animals, trying to show off who's the alpha male.

Personally, I think that the best way to diffuse stupidity and arrogance is a sense of humour. You can always mock someone who doesn't know anything with a laugh, without sounding arrogant. And you can always mock someone who is posturing.


All that made me think I'm getting old. A lot of people in their 20's are still learning about about human beings. A lot of the time, they don't realise that what you see hides a lot of things behind the outer layer. They assume, and often, they only justify from their point of view. This will change with experience and time, but unfortunately, the majority of people working in labs are in this age bracket. And that can result in an uncomfortable working environment.

I think I'll just go die now

So the off-season has been slow. Very slow. As in, the highlight of the off season was Sean Casey signing with us. And people like Bobby Kielty re-signing with us.

And then this happens.

I'm soooo boring

I've realised that a lot of my blog entry lately is commenting on other people's posts. I don't have anything new or insightful or interesting to add, since I don't work in a lab right now.

At work, I just pop in, say hi, catch up on the gossip, remind my ex-Boss I'm still alive, and go home.

Ur, so, um, I guess this blog is getting a bit boring. Can I get away with just commenting on other people's posts (in my blog, not the comment section) for now? And um, commenting with my peculiar sense of sarcasm and humour?
Duh...

Inadvertent reboot

While looking for sites which detailed the plastic surgery history of one actress, I (or should I say my laptop) downloaded something which my anti-virus didn't like, I clicked on something which I shouldn't, and my laptop started taking 15 minutes to boot up.

So I reformatted everything to its original state.

Anyway, things are a lot quicker now, I am happy, and should get back to normal...