Whatever next!?

Saw an ad for a new movie, Pathology, on TV.
What next? Immunology? Immunohistochemistry?
Seems they already have Anatomy.

Some cute marbles

From the great YouTube, here is something that should get kids excited. Or adults.

Pitagorasuicchi (Wiki entry here)
The mini version, which is shorter.

And the impressive, expensive, and more famous Honda Accord ad "cog". More information on the how, and a Wiki entry.

Pythagora-switch (pitagorasuicchi - a coined word by adding Pythagoras and switch, Pythagoras is pronounced with a "pee" not "pie") is a segment of a show airing on NHK-Educational TV, the smaller of the two channels from the national broadcaster of Japan. Similar in scope to BBC2, I guess.

I only started looking for this on YouTube because I wanted to watch the "Scone" ad (the product is not a scone, but a snack). I was surprsed to learn that the creater of that ad, as well as the "Polinky" ad (again, an ad for a snack), was the same guy behind PythagoraSwitch - Masahiko Sato. The ads were his creation!

It's interesting to note that he studied mathematics at University, then went on to work for an ad agency. According to Wiki, he only become a creative director at the age of 33 after passing a test within the agency for transferring into a more creative role (he was initially in sales). Seems he has won numerous awards for his ideas, and I can attest to his fame in Japan - I never lived long in the country, but I remember the TV ads he created. And that surely is the best compliment ever for an ad creator, that a passing uninterested observer remembers your creation for years afterwards - as in the "Scone" ad.

PS - another cute one, the "tricks of the sugar cubes".

Seminar manners

One of the great things about being a scientist must be the fact that you get to practice so many times the art of looking interested in a seminar. Actually, I don't even do that anymore. But I am guessing that scientists (academic at least) have to go through more seminars and lectures than a lot of people.

I admit I sleep at seminars. There have been times when my head was nodding so bad, but I have never knocked my head on the bench. I have also never snored. It's just that when you are sat in a seminar room, all dark and cosy like, the only thing that would stop me from dozing off is a cheap plastic chair (without the swing-out desk thing).
The worst case of seminar sleeping was, in fact, observed by me in a seminar I gave. It didn't help that the room was still lit. It didn't help that I was calm enough to observe everyone's faces. But you kinda hope that the guy sitting in the second row, slightly to the right (as I look at them), wouldn't doze off. Bet that poor fella wished he came in a little more early to the seminar so he could get the back seat. Oh, don't get me wrong, it isn't personal.

I have problems with my stomach though. It grumbles, and it grumbles loud, when it wants food. And loud, as in the person sitting next to me can hear it. So when I go to conferences, I have to fatten myself up with snacks, chocolate and junk food.
Every coffee break is a mad dash to the biscuits. If possible, I try and go around the exhibitors and grab a couple of those mini-chocolate things. Oh, and coffee is welcome too, to stave off the sweet induced drowsiness. Which means that at the end of the day, I have a constant headache from too much caffeine, and a full stomach.

Having said that, I do think it is a faux pas to eat crisps during a seminar. Sandwiches, yes, if you open the wrapper in the beginning. But there is nothing more irritating than a guy munches through one of those "Big Eat" Walkers crips packs, agonizingly slowly.

The New Dawn

To honour the start of the new season, I leave a link to the makers of the Pappet.

Am I glad I paid my year subscription to MLB.tv for this. At least I'll be able to watch the damn game in the morning.

Some guys have all the luck

I don't consider myself to be an unduly unlucky person - my life has had its fair share of coincidences and luck to make me believe I am born under a "sort of" lucky star. But there is one aspect in which I am totally unlucky.

The aspect being attending conferences in exotic locations.

You see, in the >10 years that I have been in academia as a scientist, I have never, ever, travelled to exotic places for a conference. And I mean places like New Orleans, San Francisco, LA, Chicago, Miami, Berlin, Barcelona, Stockholm, you name it, I haven't been. BTW, they were all places my colleagues went to, but not me.

My conference travel history was bound to be a failure, as the first big conference (i.e. not Biochemical Soc meetings) I attended which was actually held outside the city I was working, was in Brighton. Hedonistic, yes, and Fatboy Slim performed on the beach. But that wasn't in February. Brighton in February is not that appealing.

Within the UK, I have actually never ventured outside England for a conference. Not Scotland. Not even Wales. English cities where I have had the pleasure of staying in student dormitories includes Sheffield, Bristol, Liverpool, Warwick Uni (which is in the middle of bloody nowhere between Coventry and Warwick).

I have never been to an European conference, in mainland Europe.
However, I have been to a conference in America. But, true to form, that was a disappointment.

The first time I went to a conference in America, I went to Boston.
And unfortunately for me, that was like the fourth time I had been to Boston. Hell, I went to see the Red Sox when Pedro Martinez was there, when Dan Duquette was the GM, and John Harrington was the CEO, when Mo Vaughn was still playing there, you could buy decent tickets, the toilets were crap,... okay, okay, and so on.
I've eaten the chowdah already. I've seen the Sox in rain. I've been on the Duck Tours. Hell, I've even been up the John Hancock Tower and listened to the air traffic controller communication from Logan Airport.
The year before, that conference was held in San Francisco. The year later, in Toronto. Both cities which I have not been. But when I have enough results, where can I go? Bloody Boston.
(If I do get to go to another one of these conferences, I fear that I will be going to the one in Washington DC. Could my conference attendance record be any worse?)


Do I feel cheated? Yes.
Do I want to go anywhere exotic? Yes.


So my career-long aim from now on is to go somewhere exotic for a conference.

Some recipes

My pickled pork, waiting to be used...

Recently I've become more interested in American cuisine, particularly those of the southern states. I've made a few recipes from Nola cuisine blog, where the above pickled pork protocol comes from. Yes, that website indeed has the recipe for the Sazerac cocktail, hence this entry after the bourbon entry (although they say never make it with bourbon...good, coz I am not going to make a damn cocktail with my bottle of Buffalo Trace).
From that website, I have tried the okra and chicken and andouille gumbos (substituting andouille with chorizo), but for a first go, I would recomment the shrimp etouffee. And trust me, make your own shrimp stock. Don't worry, prawn shells don't smell as fishy as fish. It might taking f&*#ing ages to shell a kilo of prawns (which I did), but it is definitely worth it. And remember to wear an apron, coz prawn brain juice will fly.
A note of caution - I found the creole seasoning on the recipe page to be quite peppery. Maybe cut down on the pepper amount when you make it, keeping others the same. Also, I prefer to cut out the salt, so I can add as much or as little as I like, direct to the dish (I generally don't put in as much salt as recommended, not because I'm healthy, but because I forget).

The pickled pork above will be for red beans & rice, which is next on my to-eat list.

BTW, I admit that my interest in Cajun cooking partly comes from my curiousity deathwish of making Cajun Napalm. That was fun, standing in front of the cooker for a good few minutes (okay, more like 30) stirring an ever scary looking mix of flour in oil. CB suggested we import a hotplate and flea from the lab to do the job. That would make it easier on me.


The next recipe I recommend, is from the Independent's Mark Hix.
His Monkfish & autumn squash tagine, is great. I never thought about tagines using fish, but this one works well. It helps to use a firm fish which doesn't crumble.
I make my own preserved lemons, which isn't hard. Just remember to use unwaxed, organic lemons. And don't worry about using the correct type of lemon - I don't have a choice, and it still turns out good. Have a look at the recipe at David Lebovitz's blog. I do it differently though - I still use a tablespoon of salt in the lemon, but I pickle it by filling a jar full of salted lemons to the top with boiling water, with a tablespoon of salt per salted lemon, and juice of a lemon added to the pickling water. Keep it for a week at room temperature, then stick it in the fridge until needed. Easy.

I like reading David Lebovitz's blog for two reasons - one, because he has an extensive recipe list of sweet stuff (I found the blog while researching a recipe of salt ice cream - the salted butter caramel ice cream of his was the closest I got). And two, because he mentions an important point regarding exotic cuisine and spices.

It wasn't until I learned about Moroccan spices that I realized that a tagine is basically a braise seasoned with specific spices mixed in the right combination, such as turmeric, paprika, saffron and ground ginger. Mexican food isn't all that difficult if one familiarizes themselves with chilies, cilantro, and corn tortillas.

Which is totally true. As long as you keep the basic spices and seasoning, you can't really go wrong. So never substitute or omit spices in a recipe. You can do whatever you want with the other stuff (meat and veg) to a degree, but don't f%#k with the spices.

Some libation

I enjoy my whisk(e)y, and lately have been rather adventurous with my choice. My choices from the single malts would be Islay's peaty Laphroaig, and the Japanese Hakushu (which is I think the most peaty from the Suntory malts). Don't knock the Japanese one, Hakushu is good if you don't particularly like the intense peatiness of Laphroaig, but still want to try. A few years ago, I was given a bottle of Bruichladdich, which I found refreshing. I've also bought a blended one from Glenrothes, which was surprisingly good.

So being rather adventurous (and reading this from the Independent), I started thinking about bourbon. Trying the standard, I tried Maker's Mark first. I didn't like it in the beginning, but it sort of grows on you. But it didn't grow on me as much as the above bottle of Buffalo Trace. Despite what Mark Hix says, I am most definitely not going to make a bloody marinade from that.
The next bottle I buy will probably be Knob Creek. I was given a miniature bottle before, but that disappeared real quick, and to truly appreciate it I should invest in a full 70cl bottle.



A question on a beer cocktail. I don't know whether it is a true cocktail, but is there a name for a concoction of half-lager, half-pink grapefruit juice? It's really nice, very summery. Advice is that you pour half a glass of pink grapefruit juice, then pour beer slowly to the top. A non-descript but stronger lager like Stella goes well. I learnt of this from a website, and was wondering if it was a known beer cocktail like shandy.

Imposter Syndrome part 2

Continuing on from my previous post about Imposter syndrome (it's two posts down), I'm going to delve into my past and my psyche to see where all this doom and gloom is sprouting from. I admit the post is pitiful, and I am kinda feeling sorry for myself.

*********
I've always kinda had a proverbial "half-my-foot-outta-that-door", when it came to scientific research. It's not that I wanted to do anything else, it was more of an understanding that I just am not good (i.e. intelligent) enough. I feel I don't make the cut. And I am not brash or confident enough to bluff my way through.
(on a baseball analogy, like a player who is good, but is always in and out of the minors, but has racked up a good 10 years of pro ball. Which also means that he has a hole in his swing, cannot adjust that well, but has solid defence and thus is a valuable bench player.)

I started off doing chemistry, and slowly it has shifted towards cell and molecular biology in a space of, say, 10 years. I think my Chemistry background has served me extremely well; it has given me a solid base and understanding on which to build my biological knowledge. Not to mention that I can actually calculate molarities.

Couple that to all my innate insecurities, I have a little chip on my shoulder, in that I have been a journeyman of sorts when it comes to academic research. I haven't spent all this past 10 years working on one protein. Or one gene. Or one topic. Hell, I think I would have quit a long time ago if I was forced to work on one thing for that long. I've continually evolved by choosing projects I enjoyed, or thought would be good to me, or interesting. (Part of that is because I get bored easily - I need my adrenalin fix, even if it has to do with my work it seems)

I don't regret what I did at all. It kept me interested in research, and has taught me various lessons about both life on a personal level, and professional level. I enjoy having all this random knowledge in my head. (Anyway, it don't matter now because it is in the past.)

But the thing is, as far as I am aware, a person in academia is expected to be an expert at some (one?) thing. And I most definitely am not. Hence the half-outta-door idea. I always feel like I am not good enough. So maybe there is no point in me staying in academic research.
I don't know enough about a topic. Hell, even as a postdoc, I usually end up not knowing as much as my boss - and people tell you that you should know more about the project/thesis than your supervisor! (that's how I feel anyway - and I don't mean the practical aspects of a project. I am very good in that way. Only the theoretical side of the project, I am lax in gathering knowledge. Maybe my ex-bosses will beg to differ, maybe not)

Reading snippets of articles regarding careers from Nature or Science, I think that I am at best, a mediocre scientist. There are things I excell at, but often I feel that those qualities which I pride myself in, are not necessarily required or favourable in academic science.


And then, I wonder, if I was doing something else - if I was employed in a field whereby it wasn't something I always wanted to do (I knew I wanted to go into research when I started my undergraduate degree), would it be different?
I think that I would enjoy a change in career, in as much as it is doing something new. Although I get extremely nervous when I am put in a new environment, I enjoy learning new things, and am sufficiently intelligent to be able to quickly master it to a good level (and I know it).

If I wasn't in academic research, I wonder if this feeling of "am I good enough?" will lessen? Because every other job nowadays seem to be transient. Will "trying as hard as possible" in your new career be okay, instead of being judged by an absolute scale of knowledge and intelligence?

Car accidents and handedness

Following on from my post on ocular dominance, here is another random thought on handedness.

I read somewhere sometime ago, that being right-handed in a left-lane driving society is not good for the passenger of a car. Let me explain.

In a left-hand driving society, such as that of the United Kingdom, the driver's seat is on the right of the car. The front passenger seat is therefore on the left of the car.
So when a driver is faced with a possible head-on collision, I am guessing the first instinct is to swerve to avoid the oncoming object. And as most people are right handed, and the quickest flight-or-fight instinct is to pull towards you (I guess...), I assume that the driver will pull towards/down using the right hand.
Which will make the car turn to the right, hence the passenger on the seat to the left is more exposed to a sideways collision than the driver.

So it is safer as a right-handed human to be driving in a right-hand lane country, like the States. (However, Wikipedia states that ocular dominance has something to do with it too)

This might be completely untrue, of course, and judging the amount of crap that is in my brain, I wouldn't be surprised.


But then I got thinking. What happens if you are truely ambidextrous? What would determine which hand would take dominance in an emergency situation? And anyway, even if you are ambidextrous, there must be some handedness for various activities - like you might prefer writing with your right hand, but you can use chopsticks with your left. You might prefer catching with your right hand, but bat left-handed.

Does it matter? Does anyone care? Do I not have anything more interesting to blog about?

Imposter Syndrome

I've been thinking about my job and where I am and all, what with the recent rejection of a paper. You know, I tell myself that it isn't personal, and it happens, but I certainly am tired of putting myself in front of the gushing river of failure.


I am guessing that it isn't as strong as a true imposter syndrome (as in, it's so strong that you can't function, or that there is this constant niggling self doubt), but I do have pretty deep seated self-doubts.

The thing is... I am bad at criticising a piece of work.

I don't think I am as critical (for e.g., of a paper) as someone with my experience should be. I guess I don't think as much - I guess I am more of an engineer type, better with hands and problem solving, than picking holes in a theory. I mean, if and when I am on a project, I know what experiments need to be done, and why.
This lack of critical view is more a problem in things like journal clubs, where you are expected to criticise a paper in a logical way. I can tell that a paper is crap or good, but it always is gut-feeling for me.
I really have a problem with seeing the problem of a paper. I can see the whole story, but fail at breaking it down. If a paper is a pyramid made of blocks, I am not a person who is able to see a crack in one block that may lead to the crumbling of the whole structure. I (think I) can tell if the pyramid is built from crappy materials, or each of the blocks aren't perfect. But I don't see whether each block is faulty or not.

Add to this, that the one thing I know about myself is that I am lazy. I used to be those people who would cram everything in in the last few days of an exam, and actually get away with obtaining a fair grade (not sure if I can do that now what with my age). My sister was the opposite - she would actually study every day.
Sibling rivalry aside, there was an element of envy in her steady study programme. I don't know whether it relates to the fact that I can't concentrate on one thing for long (as I mentioned previously).
Also, the fact that I could understand concepts so easily when I was in high school, probably made me more lazy, because I didn't really have to think that hard to understand. I "got" concepts pretty easily. And when I failed to "get" the idea, I didn't follow that path any more (e.g. physics after A-level).

Whether or not it is reasonable, I keep on thinking that I should be more critical.
At the same time I know that just because I am not, doesn't mean that I am a bad postdoc - I have seen people who are great at tearing papers apart, but is not as careful in their own work (whether that is a blinkered optimism on their part, I don't know). I know that there are other aspects of my self that other people deem worthy of my position as a postdoc. Maybe I am actually more critical, but I don't give credit to myself. I don't know.


Going back to criticising papers - I guess I am really lazy, because I don't go through the motions of thinking through the idea behind the paper. It is far easier to see a figure and pick holes in it, rather than reading the whole paper, the whole hypothesis, and studying every aspect and angle of the paper.
Having been through so many journal clubs, I know the tricks I need to employ to overcome my laziness. But things like reviewing a paper and stuff...that is another question.

Surely not!!

The depth of human stupidity knows no bounds. Who would have thought that Viagra would make you see blue. Of course, such a startling discovery was published in that pinnacle of scientific journalism, the Daily Mail. *snigger*
I wonder if there is a medical condition that turns vision into a certain shade - I mean, I've heard of colour-blindedness, but blue-shadedness?
Shame the guy isn't into Arsenal or Man Utd. That would've been funny. Can you imagine supporting the Canaries?

I hates it!!

It's Friday, and what better to kick start the weekend than an email from Big Boss letting me know that our lovely handcrafted manuscript was rejected. Again.

Being unemployed and not having to deal with the day-to-day life as a scientist, my professional firewall (that keeps all frustrations and irritations at work outside the realms of my happy persona) is not properly up (probably have to do with the fact that I have an abundance of time), and I am a wee bit pissed off.
At least we haven't exhausted the list of possible journals yet. That was only journal no.2 it was submitted to.
And I always thought the work was a bit prelim - probably better off writing a grant, rather than publishing, but that ain't what the funders wanna see...

I think I'm going to leave dealing with this rejection until Monday.

Which leaves me to think...how long does it take for a person to accept the rejection and get on with it? I mean, I try to be am pragmatic and all, but somewhere down there it hurts a bit. I know people who go overboard with it, drowning their sorrows by bitching, but what good does that do? And when I'm pissed off, I am off-centre, I don't react well, so I might as well let it sit for a bit before dealing with it...

Thank God for the weekend.

Another Lab

On my trips down to the Big Ol' City, I always try to go to the Lab to grab a drink...


A bar which I was introduced to about a decade ago, and still going strong in Soho. The prices of the drinks haven't changed, but it was outrageous in the first place.

On this occasion, we were treated to a great show by the two bartenders behind the counter (I was drinking at the upstairs bar). They were like two little terriers, or rather, ferrets. Squeezing and jumping and laughing and mixing. Watching them two were decidedly worth the money.
Not to mention the care and attention, as well as that serious look in the eye one of them had whilst slicing half an apple for the decoration on my Colraine Cooler. The slices were all the same thickness, mind you, and it was far better than what I could have done with a knife.

These guys, they know their stuff. Having bartenders who do not need to look at the cocktail menu to mix them, especially when the cocktail menu is a booklet 20-pages long, is properly professional, and is an eye-opener when you are more used to student part-timers whose idea of a cocktail is "JD and Coke".

The proprietor of this fine establishment has a cocktail book out himself. You might have to remortgage the house to just buy all the liquers and spirits mentioned in the book, but it is a worthwhile investment - even just to look at it.