I will survive

Actually, I'm not sure if I will. I mean, I've been sleeping like a sloth (although I hear that they aren't as lazy as we make them to be), doing nothing all day, what, for 8 months?

I'm starting my job next week.
Aw, hell.

Anyway, hence the change to the top blurb about my blog. I shall once again become a postdoc. Wow. If I make it to the end of this, that would be an 8-year career as a lab monkey.

Interviews

At long last, I might be back to the land of taxpayers.

Yes, I have applied for a position - the position I was eyeing for the last few months. With my last supervisor. The grant came through, the ad went out; I applied, and I had an interview.
See, I'm superstitious, and I had the interview on Tuesday, but I didn't want to jinx it, so I'm only writing about it now.

It's so hard to be motivated to write a presentation (10 minute short, too) which you will be doing in front of your old boss, about the work which you and your boss are writing a paper about.
And a paper which has been such a pain in the ass that you'll be happy seeing it published, if only to get it off your IN/OUT tray. I mean, are we not sick of this work yet? Have I seen these figures, like, 100 times before? And how do you distil a 10-page paper worth of work into 10 minutes? Talk real fast?

It's even more of a motivatory problem when you know the person you are interviewing with. Granted, I don't know the other person in the "interview panel", but still, I can hazard a guess as to which of the busy/lazy PIs will be interviewing me (as in, who is too busy, who is too lazy, and that leaves who).

It's a funny thing when you are the internal candidate. In my case, as the grant hadn't come through quick enough, I am applying as an external candidate - I think it is because for them to employ yours truly, they have to do it by the book and just go through the whole process - but all things considered, it makes sense to employ me. Of course, I am not counting chickens until I get my official letter, and I am not going to be that peeved off if I don't get the position - I think I'll be more relieved that now, I can REALLY start looking for a job.

Whilst I was talking to our SuperTech (apres-interview), Mr.Strauss kind of mentioned that "it must be hard when you apply for a position when there is already an internal candidate". Which is true. But for those of you who are sceptical about applying for such a position, think about the positive.
It will be an exercise in interview techniques. You will get practice with different interview methods. You will practice your talk. You will get reimbursed for your efforts. If you do make an impact, at least you know the other person knows you (a kind of "getting your name known" exercise). And anyway, you AREN'T supposed to know that there is an internal candidate.
Granted, it's trying to make you feel better when there is not much of a chance of getting the job - but why look at the doom and gloom, when you can scrape the bottom of the barrel for a little hope?

And I tell you why, despite being the internal top candidate, I am still unsure - because one of my friends actually got a position whereby he was an external candidate, applying for a position where there was another person lined up for the position.
When you hear something like that, you make sure before you go an plan the future. And it probably also is because I am really suspicious and don't trust easily. And of course, you never know.

It might be that the interviewer (PI) meets the woman of his dream and wants her to get the job. You never know.

Slackers

I was talking to an old friend of mine, from my PhD years. We were talking about how we're both out of a job as a postdoc, me waiting for this other position, and her in a limbo because the two grants she wrote with her ex-boss was rejected.
She's working now in B&Q for the time being, but I have a suspicion that she actually enjoys working in the sacred temple of DIY.

Then there is this other girl I met up a while ago - from my early PhD days, when she was doing a M.Sc. in the lab. She wasn't sure about doing it, but did a PhD after all, and after a couple of 2-year postdocs, she is off Stateside for another postdoc. I think she actually has done three 2-year postdocs. Am not sure.
According to her, she gets bored with a project after 2 years, and needs to move on (to a new place).

Then there is this couple, again postdocs - but they are a couple of years ahead from me, career-wise. Still postdocing.

There must be a few others who are still doing postdocs once you hit 30...I can't remember. Oh yeah, Mr.Strauss, who is out of contract soon, and was looking at an ad for a technician position.
Anyway.

The thing we have in common is that we're all in our mid-30's (bar Mr.Strauss who is ancient).

We like doing what we do, and my guess is that we are not overly ambitious to apply for lectureships (maybe others tried...). We know what being a lecturer and PI is like (having seen it first hand), and the stress and pressures that entails. Anyway, that's what I say.
Obviously, there is no immediate and dear financial hardship, and there doesn't seem to be this need to obtain earnings which are par with the age (i.e. if you are 33, you earn 33k). I'm guessing that there are some hidden financial assets available too, otherwise you wouldn't take this laid back approach to your career.
Oh, and everyone fends for themselves. Most of them don't have children, which is a bonus - you only need worry about yourself.

Is this the new "hippie" work culture for academic scientists?
I don't know what it is. Is it the realisation, that in this age of constant career changes, it seems that it is never too late to change careers? Is there a shift in perspectives about careers?
I do like the quote attributed (according to the IMDB) to the American actor, Liev Schreiber, although I am probably taking it out of context:

"You can think about your career or you can think about your job. I like to think about my job."

Which is quite useful when thinking about your day-to-day life.
I think back about what one of my supervisors said. He was one who gave out advise, like "go to the States to do your postdoc, then you will be someone" or "going back to do a second postdoc in the lab you did your PhD is not good for your career" or "you have to be a PI after your second postdoc".

Or maybe my friends and I are all living in la-la land. Having said that, looking at the newly maternal GorrillaGrrrl, maybe not.

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?

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.

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.

Serial or parallel?

DrugMonkey makes a good point on my previous post. It got me thinking about multi-tasking.

When you are a PhD student, you don't need to do a lot of multi-tasking. Oh, and I don't include doing three experiments in one go, as multi-tasking. The closest a student gets to is, say, doing experiments and writing an abstract for a poster at a conference. Most PIs I have known actually allow students to have writing time for reports (of course, writing a thesis involves a lot more effort so having writing up time is obvious), and also some time for writing a paper, if the student actually gets to write any of it at all.
But all involving (typically) one project. The sequence of events and deadlines are mostly linear, and despite hearing the PhD student readers objecting, I don't think it is hard to schedule that.

When you get to a postdoc level, you have to step up. You are typically involved in more than one project, even if there is a major and minor projects. You might have a student to look after (in my case, when I did, I spent quite a lot of time, effort, and vocal chord health for the student. Talking takes so much energy...). Your supervisor might dump you to write an abstract, some kind of short paragraph for a grant he is writing, take part in interviews (i.e. show the applicants around and "chat" to them). And not only do you not have a rought idea according to the academic calender when they will happen, they might not tell you before hand about it.

You also should be looking out for yourself. It is up to you to find fellowships, go to interesting seminars, keep up to date with journals, if you haven't gotten into the habit already.

And you should realise that things don't happen in an instant. You do not get the results of your actions quickly. So you have to keep going, and change tack everytime you get new information.

Where is this all leading, regards to DM's comment? Well, I totally agree that it is a mistake for that postdoc to think that one paper will change everything. It will not, and for a person with his experience (two postdocs!), he really should know better.
If you were a student, you might think that one paper will change everything - and it might, especially if it is your first paper. But a postdoc on his second contract? Uh-oh. People might question having a paper "submitted" on your CV, but is it worth stalling an application for?
Stalling anything for the sake of one paper, is not productive. And especially nowadays, when it might take (gasp) a year for the final manuscript to get accepted (from the initial idea), it is not efficient use of your time to wait for that one paper.


BTW, I didn't learn this all by myself. I was watching how my two postdoc supervisors dealt with things, and that is what I noticed. You can't wait until you know for sure, or get the correct info, or get that last result. You just start it rolling, do as much as you can, and if things change, you change your plan with it. I think it is far more productive and less stressful for you.
Personally, I get set in my ways. I need to remind myself to keep the flow going, and that nothing is concrete. It goes against me sometimes, but it is for the better if I flow with it.

To go with that, is another rule - never say "I'll do that in more detail later". That's a cardinal sin. Seeing my ex-boss, who is a very busy man with his finger in more pies than you can imagine, every moment is important and has to count for something. So when he has a chance to read, edit, write a paper, he gives it his full concentration.
That is also something I have had to learn too, as I've often not had that kind of pressure on my time. There was always "later". But doing things later, is such a waste of time. Why do it twice when you can do it once?

To go or not to go - Part 2

I noticed that DrugMonkey has mentioned my previous post in his post, and I thought I'll update this little topic.

Recently I had a chance to catch up with the said postdoc.

Apparently the PI is going to try and come back part-time in the next month, although he might be feeling weak and not really worried too much about work (fair enough).
I asked the postdoc what he is up to lately, and he is happy with how the work is going. Results are coming through, and is interesting. He is also going to a week-long workshop soon, and that should be good - it would help him with his current project.
His contract is ending this summer. So I asked him whether he was planning on applying (or have applied already) for fellowships. His answer was that he really needed to concentrate on the paper (which would include the results that he is getting at the moment), and that he had no time.

Okaaaaay. I see a problem already.


I can understand that writing a paper is important.

But a person in his position, with his amount of experience (it is his second postdoc he is doing at the moment), should be able to set aside some time to at least think about a fellowship. I don't know whether he thinks he won't be eligible for the majority of fellowships because of his age, but still, I think he should be looking around for it.
His project centres around a particular protein - a protein that hasn't been studied in detail (e.g. like p53). He could easily write a grant proposal. I mean, I worked on my small niche corner of a particular protein X, and I could see that from the work I had done, I could write a grant proposal (even if it is only for an RA or a PhD student). You do two postdocs, and you will be able to come up with some interesting ideas. Hell, it doesn't even have to be a concrete idea. Just extending your own project enough, that the PI can suggest ways to extend it further.
And even if it doesn't get funded after application, at least you tried.
The little experience I have in writing manuscripts tell me that results are a fickle thing. They are like buses - the come all at once, or you wait ages for the next one. And also, that once you write it and submit, the reviewers will come back to you with more. There is always more work, and it always takes longer to finish off a paper and see it accepted.
So rather than focussing his mind 100% on the single manuscript, he could spend a little less time worrying about a single paper, and more on hedging bets for the future, especially with his end of contract looming close. Half a year is never a long time, especially when deadlines are concerned.

He also mentioned that he really needs this paper for his publication record. And that he needs the paper before he can apply for fellowships.
But is one paper going to make that much of a difference? He isn't a PhD student, whose publication record may be not-so-long, and who may be desperate for that first, first-author paper. To me, he doesn't have the luxury of time. If he waits until this paper is published, then apply for a fellowship, it can be months before he sees any grants for himself.


This postdoc wants to be a PI, and thinks he is intelligent and hard-working enough to be one.
If I was in his position, with that kind of ambition (i.e. be a PI), I think I would be working during the weekends to try and write a grant proposal or a fellowship. But I'm not, so I am sitting here blogging with a cup of coffee.

To go or not to go

It got me thinking the other day, about an acquaintance of mine...who is a postdoc working for a PI who is on extensive medical leave. The PI's story is a tragic one, and the extended medical leave is due to a few surgical operations. I don't think the PI will be back anytime soon - so soon that PhD students who were advised by him, have been transferred onto another PI to look after.

Now, he has a PhD student of his own, as well as a postdoc. The PhD student, I think, will be okay - he has collaborators who will help her, and I think the PI will try and take care of her (and I mean, let's face it, it's a legal requirement nowadays to NOT leave a student in a lurch). The problem for me, is the position of the postdoc.
The postdoc needs to have a good publication in this position, if he wants to be a PI in a good institute. He needs to apply for fellowships and stuff. And I don't see how he can do that without the PI being there. I know you can do without it, but I think it is very helpful for the PI to give you ideas, to read stuff, suggest ways of writing a fellowship that will get you what you want. I think, if the PI was around, he would help his postdoc write a good fellowship and maybe even keep him there.

But the problem is that now, the postdoc is on a free reign. That shows the amount of trust the PI has in him, but is it good for the postdoc? I mean the PI has a more pressing stress on him; and he is already a PI. But for the person trying to make it as a lecturer?
Thinking about manipulation here now, if the postdoc stays and shows his solidarity, the PI might think about extending his contract. But he doesn't have any postdoc positions open - and won't be for a while, since he isn't writing any new grants at the moment.

So this opens up a question.
To leave or not to leave.

I am sure the PI will not hold anything against the postdoc for leaving - how can he? I know him to be a decent person, and as far as I know, he isn't vindictive.
As for the postdoc... I don't think he realises that this particular situation is not good for him. I don't think he has the capability of churning out decent work without his boss, and I certainly don't think he has enough work to publish.

Now, if he leaves, that means he has left a good year of work down the drain. He might leave with a reputation of being a quitter.


What would you do?
What would I do if I was in a similar position?
That would depend on my age, I think. If I was in my first postdoc, I think I might just jump ship. There is nothing to be gained as a postdoc from being in a lab alone (without much experience, I might add) without any supervision or help.
Now, if that had happened last year, I probably would have stayed on until the end of my contract. That means I would still get my hands on the statutory redundancy pay (which you get at the end of your contract, when you leave), keep a good relationship with PI, and also, my conscience would be clean.
I think personally, I would like to hang around and keep the PI's group together (however tenuous). I might even use the time to do some stuff on my own - no supervision means you can do whatever the hell you like with your time!

Shooting myself in the foot

I have to admit, sometimes I wonder whether my mentioning that "I prefer NOT to be a PI" hurts my chances. At what? Ur, I am not sure. But I have mentioned this to the BigBoss, ex-boss, new PIs I have met whom I am friendly with, postdoc colleagues, PhD stduents...

I wouldn't suggest that everyone who has any doubts in science in academia to do the same.
It probably is not a good idea. I only do it because I am certain I don't want to be a PI. And I am also certain that I am intelligent enough and take my postdoc position seriously, and that attitude seeps through. I also prefer being in the supportive role, in helping someone else (i.e. the PI) do the job well - I find my value and happiness in that. I am confident, and will not back down if challenged, but I am not a "ME ME ME" person (like the CheshireCat, for example).

Anyway, if this new postdoc position comes through with BigBoss, then that means I would have been postdocing for over 6 years. Sounds funny, that I used to say I didn't want to be a postdoc forever (with a touch of derision), and that I always had a foot out the door.

Why I don't want to stay in Academia part 2

I went to a seminar series about various careers, and one of them was on Medical Writing. Medical writing is a career I am seriously thinking about. I can see myself doing that, and enjoying the variety of work.

So at this session, we had a presentation (in this case it was an overview of the industry, not just what you do, but what kind of people you deal with, or what they expect from you - it's a "service" industry after all!). And with any presentations, you have a Q&A session at the end. And you can tell so much about the audience just by listening to the questions....

One person asked whether you (i.e. medical writer speaker) have had any ethical problems - i.e. the client pushing the writer to write something unethical. Which, to me, makes no sense. Apart from the fact that it is regulated (and any writing that the medical writer is expected to do, would have gone through rigorous checking with regulations and laws, because the client is a pharmaceutical company for crissakes), you are actually getting paid to do a job.
I was a bit appaled by that question - how naive are you to think that, even if you are still a PhD student or a postdoc? Then of course, I went back and had to ask myself whether I was being too harsh. Wasn't I ever that naive about the cut-throat business world? Maybe.

There was a general sense that the audience didn't seem to warm to the idea of medical writing as a career. Apart from thinking "then why the hell did you turn up?", I was wondering what these people were going to do after their student and postdoc days were over.
I mean, look at Mr.Strauss who is hitting 40 and is somehow still in dreamland. I sometimes wonder what he thinks he will be doing in 3 years time, when his contract is well and truly over. I haven't heard anything indicating that he is applying for a fellowship, and I have a feeling that he is too proud to go for a lectureship in an ex-polytechnic new-University. Anyway, I digress.

I'm beginning to wonder if people don't realize that the work environment in a University is relatively protected. Like a bubble. A lot of the time, things don't get done, people faff about, because there is no ulterior motive - like making more money and driving up profits - so nothing is really serious. Your job is often not on the line, you don't have to be driven for a goal for the organization. PIs and lecturers are different, but managers are in this lukewarm sea of indifference...

Things to put on the CV when you're bored

I was wondering, since I'm supposed to be officially looking for a job (in the New Year), what kind of transferable skills and stuff I have. What will I be proud to put on a CV?

Well, I can touch-type at 70 wpm (75 if I concentrate hard enough).
That comes from my experience as a disgruntled PhD student. I was emailing friends, moaning about the lab. And I thought, "well, if I am going to use email, I might as well learn to type properly". So I started putting my fingertips on the ASDF-JKL; keys. Fast forward 10 years later, and you have one smug postdoc, looking at her bosses as they type using two fingers (a.k.a. hunt and peck). Actually, it is amazing how many people don't actually touch-type - I've noticed it more now, since I have had a few occasions to observe people in offices.

And as for tech/computer savvy-ness, can you put down that in your household (of male partner and female me) that I am the one sorting out the ISP, the broadband modem, Wi-Fi, connecting the various games gadgets and PCs to the modem/router, tearing my hair out because the router misbehaves, getting info on various routers, choosing the right one, and setting it up.
Going on a tangent, this is all his fault. You see, we have a PlayStation3 console in our house. And we both like playing online games on it. However, the beloved PS3 didn't agree with something - at that point, I didn't know whether it was my modem/router or the ISP service. We were having problems with a reliable network connection to the PSN.

Then, with great timing, my WiFi modem/router conked out. It just died.

So I bought a new WiFi modem/router, still had similar problems. It just will not stay connected. At first I thought it was a router problem, so I went through everything with the customer services, setting things like port forwarding, which I never knew about before this incident.
And I changed ISPs after learning that my ex-ISP was not very nice to online gamers. They traffic shape during peak hours, which leads to our frustration when trying to play online games after work.
So in the end, I returned the new WiFi box and bought another one. Our online game life (and hence, sanity) has been restored, and we are a happier couple.
Let me tell you though, that the NetGear modem/router is a good product - it just wasn't "loose" enough for online gaming purposes for me. There might have been a hardware problem, but I think that if I didn't want a router for online gaming, it would have been okay. I particularly like the MAC address filtering feature on it, which I can't seem to find on my new D-Link one.

Hey, I even know how to change a fuse. And I have enough problem-solving skills to gather that when an electrical equipment fails, a fuse is the first thing you check. That was something a married female colleague of mine didn't know.

Back to life, back to reality?

So I went to talk to my ex-boss today, regarding this paper we are writing. We are going to submit sometime next week, at the same time doing another experiment which the reviewers might or might not want. I told him, we might as well do it, since it is an interesting point (which was made by one of the co-authors who is in Stateside) and it might give us an interesting result.
Of course, it might not.

Ex-boss actually emailed me for a meeting, so I kind of thought that something happened to that grant which he has been talking about for months and months and months (since April, to be exact).
It turns out that it did. It seems that the Institute and the GrantFunders finally decided on the nitty-gritty, and that we can all have our grubby hands on the money. Ex-boss (or Big Boss, I guess) seems pretty happy to give me the job, I'm equally happy to keep working for him...unless there's something about the project he hasn't told me about.

Anyway, I have sort of half-heartedly being looking at other opportunities as well, i.e. doing searches in the New Scientist/Nature jobs websites. There is also another position in the Institute, which isn't lab based, but a kind of supportive administrative role working with PIs. I'd be interested in that kind of position - and I know that they had problems recruiting. So I think I will apply for that as well. If I get an interview, great. If I don't, then there is nothing to lose.

Looking to the future prospects, it will be good if there is a permanent, lab-manager type of position with the ex-boss. But those are few and far between. I don't even know whether I want to do that kind of a job. It does get tiring after a while working with children.
Another thing with the future, is that in the current era of University funding, it is never clear whether your position is concrete. I guess nowadays it is the same everywhere. But even if I do start working for ex-Boss with that grant, I will be doing other things to make sure I am employable if and when I decide to hang up my Gilson...

Pick your fights

So there has been debate at Chem Blog and a motion at Propter Doc, regarding scholarships/funding which went to a lesser candidate but with the right "fit". I'm not going into the debate, because if that happened to me... well, it's tough. Next application. It is something I don't have the power to change (to my immediate benefit), so why bother getting worked up about it. Or even talking about it, because the more you talk, the more you believe yourself.

To the debate over at Chem Blog, I will just add this.
I was talking to a South African white (caucasian) scientist, who mentioned that these kinds of discrimination goes on all the time back in South Africa, in academia. And it is unfair, especially when a black candidate who is clearly less able than a white candidate gets preferential treatment. She went on to say that one of her good friends, a male caucasian South African, was working in the States on a postdoc he absolutely hates, because he cannot get any positions in his own country - even if he wants to go back. (Maybe the easiest way to get back was to make sure he couldn't be ignored - international, top quality experience. I didn't ask her about that.)

Now, you might say that it is due to the history of the country. But what does the individual think or feel about it? In this case, you, as a failed candidate, might want to scream and shout and say it isn't fair - but it won't change, and it certainly won't change for the immediate better of the individual (i.e. you).

I've also seen this kind of discrimination in a smaller scale where I worked - it was called "sleeping with people in power". I don't know what it is, but aren't middle aged men (who obviously is losing something, but has other things...) really weak to women in their 20's?

And on an even smaller scale, office politics. You get promoted because your boss is with the "in" crowd. Like "this" (cross fingers) with the boss.

Maybe in science everything seems magnified?
If everyone take themselves really seriously, it is probably because the stakes are higher? As in, there is less manoeuvability (i.e. changing companies but same job description). I don't know.


Getting back to the original topic - so what can you do as a person who has been wronged? What I would do personally, is to forget about it by finding something else to focus on - another application. Because there is no way they are going to turn back the decision.

Career? What career?

Over at In The Pipeline, there have been discussions on career changes too. This time chemists. As I am in the process for looking for a job (or not!), I'm gonna share some books that I think will be useful for people in the same shoes as me.

I've done my fair share of soul searching regarding jobs and career. One book I would recommend anyone who is thinking about change, is "What colour is your parachute?". I read this while doing nothing between my PhD and postdoc - I was really fed up of working in a lab, and disillusioned. In the end I decided that lab work, and academic labs, was the best choice. But reading the book was good in that it helped you focus in what you want and what you have. It gives a good breakdown of your skills, and tells you about capabilities. Mind you, the book I have is the 2000 edition, so it has been a while since I read it through. However, I doubt it has changed much.

Another book that was helpful to me, in a sense of opening my eye to things outside the lab, was "Alternative careers in science: Leaving the ivory tower". I would definitely recommend this book, only to give you an insight about the different people and careers they went on to pursue. It may be a tad old, since the people involved were (I assume) in their mid 30's to 40's when interviewed (ca. mid 90's), but it is still a good, insightful read.

Other books I have skimmed but not read in detail are "Career management for scientists and engineers" and "Guide to nontraditional careers in science".
I bought the first book when I was still in Chemistry (i.e. PhD era). I can't say I have read the book, as by the time I bought the book it was clear that I was in a non-physical science/engineer path.
The second book, I found a hard read...no, make that a hard skim. I admit, I didn't read this one either. It is very "American" in its feel of the text. Phrases like "You need to be..." and "You should...", as well as the general tone of the text (kind of enthusiastic/aggressive, hard-selling of self), was hard for me to take when I was in a low mental phase. When you're not the most optimistic, the most happy, and thinking about changing jobs because you don't like the current one and you don't find an end to it, such a tone of text is quite hard to swallow. For me, anyway.

So read around, think about things.


But sometimes, you just have to go for it.
People can give all sorts of advice, but you never know what will happen. I heard about a guy who got hired in a clinical lab (he was a basic scientist), because someone he had an interview with put a good word in for him. Not to the interviewer's company. To another company whom the interviewee applied to. (The problem was that he was a good candidate, but it was common practice to hire trainees in the company for that position. But he still was a very good candidate.)
This would not have happened if he didn't just go for it, even if he knew that the odds were against him.

If you don't go for it, then you might regret it. And what's worse, regretting something you missed out on, or trying and not getting it?

I'm free

As Gordon Gano once sang

I'm free-eee-eeeeeeeeeee
and I'm haaaaaaa-ppeeeeeeee-eeeeeeeeee

Yes people, I am officially unemployed now.
My contract's expired, and my boss is still doing tennis with the grant with the funding body. Not that I'm bothered about it.

The future is uncertain; I don't know whether I'll be back in a lab terrorising students and inept postdocs and holding a Gilson and getting a eppendorf callus on my left forefinger. Depending on certain things and timing, I might do something else altogether - and even retrain for doing so.

All in all, I'm happy. Not that I'm not working. More that I have done what I wanted to do, and have done it, finished it. The world I worked in, was not what I envisaged it to be when I was a young girl. But it's okay. I've been there, and done it. It took a long time to turn around, but I'm not bitter about it now. And I also know what I don't want to be.

I used to be scared of changing fields or jobs or speciality, but in this day and age, it happens to a lot of people. And a lot of people say negative things about change - but I'm not that scared. I'm more happy that I can choose to do what I want. And I am excited at the possibilities.


So I'm not sure what to do with this blog. I don't even know if it is worth keeping all the past writing, since it's so old. I don't know if I can be bothered to be bothered about science and how it is. For the time being, I'll just leave it as it is. I'll blog on it if I feel like it.

Otherwise, don't expect me to get off my lazy ass on the deck chair from my sunning routine, with a cocktail in one hand, by a beautiful calm blue sea and white sandy beach....NOT.

Sunset

J and I were talking last night about our next job.
He's looking for one, I will be looking for one soon.
Anyway, the conclusion is that, we enjoyed our time in the lab, but we can see the end. We've been doing postdocs for about 6 years now, and can just sense that our time in the lab is coming to an end. And we're actually not that bothered about it. We both think there are more interesting jobs out there, something that is different and challenging. (And we both certainly don't want to be PIs)

For me at least, I don't want to be working with naive/stupid students, asking the same old questions year after year, not knowing basic science or chemistry, and getting more and more immature (that's because I am getting older).
J pointed out that I was like that (i.e. cynical) when I started postdoc'ing 6 years ago. Well, now, it's 6 years later and I've been doing the same old same old for 6 years. When you see the same thing over and over again, you get bored/desperate/tired.

I don't want to be doing 12 hour days anymore, no matter how interesting the project. I like my 9-to-5 now, which has changed from my mentality 3 years ago.

I certainly don't want to start over in a new lab, as a postdoc. I don't want to learn about new diseases and how we "might" cure them. I've learnt as much as I really wanted to - actually, if I was an independent researcher, I probably can do a good job. I know how to propagate plasmids, tissue culture techniques, western blotting, RNA stuff, I can do a little bit of cloning (but hey, there are millions of mol. biol. graduates and postgraduates nowadays), I can certainly do a lot of basic cell biology.


I spoke to people I know, and people who actually understand where I am coming from (not some final year Ph.D. student who is blinkered and is desperately looking for postdoc jobs they "find interesting"), and they say I need a challenge. Something different. I agree, I need a new situation where there is a lot to learn - I am not learning many new things right now. And by that, I don't mean techniques or anything - I just...know how to go about learning new techniques. The gloss has worn off after 5 years or so.

And there is the realisation, which J pointed out, that many academic departments and schools are just plain boring. You know, when new lecturer jobs are up, the candidates that get the job are the ones who the current stuff can identify and understand. So there is never going to be the exciting, innovative (what a buzz word) research coming in from the outside. J pointed out that that had happened quite recently - one candidate who was doing quite novel, interesting work, didn't get the job. Despite people thinking his work was innovative, novel and interesting. What does that say about academic research?
I guess that is the one failing of academia - it's so hard to become a PI, that once you are, you like to stick to what you know. And that includes your own work, as well as people you are on the interview panel for.
And on that note, the same can be said for PIs. How many PIs do we all know, where they basically do an extension of their postdoc work? These PIs worked in a well-known lab, with world class PIs, but they are normal/boring/not innovative at all. And that now they have a secure job, they don't find the need to be adventurous.


So here I am now, thinking about what to do next.
In this day and age, changing career is not surprising - wasn't there a statistic that said a person changed careers twice on average, in a lifetime?

But before that, I'd better have a chat with my boss about stuff...

Would I really?

The postdoc carnival prompt this time was "What would you do differently?". I take it that it is about (postdoc) careers. This is a hard one for me, mainly because I don't believe in thinking about the "shoulda woulda coulda". Now, that, is only fun when you're watching sports. It can lead to all kind of brawls.
I mean, what is the point in thinking about what you could have done? Is it not more realistic, pragmatic, and practical, to have your head in the "now"? I see too many people around me complain about things in the here and now, not putting in effort to make the best of what is possible.
(I might think that way, because I am not the most proactive person in the world - I tend to just appreciate and be ultra-pragmatic about the current situation, and just work with it)


Anyway, back to the question.
If there was a time, where realistically I could have made a different choice, being the same person that I am (and thinking back at what I knew then, not at what I know now), the only difference I could have made is:

Choosing to go to USA for my undergrad degree.

Then, yes, life would have been different. But I didn't.


Overall, with my postdoc and scientific career, I am happy with the choices that I have made. There are always positives you can look to. Sometimes such positives only come to a light later on.
For example, I had certain problems with people in my Ph.D., but thinking back, it was all a learning experience - getting along with different people.
I used to think, that as a privately educated foreigner, that I didn't "fit" in. Now I don't care as much. You can't change your past, and it's far better being confident in yourself. I look back at how some people reacted to me, and I realise now that it wasn't my fault. A lot of it has to do with confidence.
I hated working in my Ph.D. lab, because we had zero funding. I look back at it now, and it makes me appreciate what I have around me now. And also feel a little sorry for students who have it all (like, buying in buffers and gels). If they end up working in a developing country, how will they cope?
I hated my supervisors for not "understanding". Now I know what they had to deal with! Bloody students.

So, if you have time to think about "what you could have done differently" career-wise, look around, change what you can change, change yourself, and if it doesn't work, change the environment you are in. But the only person who can make it better for you, is yourself.

How I became a scientist - Part Two

Following on from the previous post (below), maybe I should go into a little more detail about my path after my undergrad degree. I don't know if this will make it into the next postdoc carnival on uniqueness, but anyway.

My PhD was 50 % chemistry and 50 % biology. I did inorganic sythesis and solution kinetics for the chemistry bit (plus a lot of trouble shooting and repairing or making a machine work). And basic microbiology and a fair amount of cell biology. That's where I picked up how to work a Gilson, how to do staining, and where I decided working with bugs ain't fun because you couldn't see them well under a microscope (even with oil immersion). I much preferred working with mammalian cells, because you could see them under the microscope, and they were finicky - they died if you were mean (i.e. media too alkali, too long in air, etc).

I was really burnt out, so took out a year. I went back home, thought and contemplated a lot about life. Tried to get jobs in companies, but failed, and then realised the only path was to become a postdoc.
So I looked around, but that was when the fad that was my thesis topic(s) had gone. More people were doing application of that fad, which I wasn't interested in (immunology? Pah!). I tell you, there was nothing!!! I looked long enough to find an ad with something I recognized - a protein family that a postdoc in my PhD lab was working on.
It was more that I was familiar with the name of the protein, and that the project wanted to look at the effect of that protein, that made me apply. I didn't think I had a chance, but was called for an interview. Which also happened to be my first interview for a postdoc position (having said that, I think I only had applied to a few places at that time - not many position advertised which interested me, as I said before).

At which point, I made it clear to the PI that I didn't know molecular biology; I didn't know how to do western blotting, but I have seen people do it; I didn't know anything about cell biology bar a basic knowledge. But I was very willing to learn, and made sure the PI knew that I was looking for a postdoc which expanded my technical abilities. I didn't want to do the same thing over again, and to me, it seemed that getting out of pure chemistry was the way to go. Rightly or wrongly, at that time I felt that there wasn't that many positions or money in academic chemistry as compared to biological sciences.

My referees must have put in a good work, coz I got the job.

I think, that without my postdoc supervisor, I wouldn't be here. If it wasn't for her, I wouldn't have been keen on science still (I told people that I was dabbling in academic science, that I would give it a try, before quitting and doing something else after my first postdoc). I wouldn't have applied for another postdoc. I enjoyed the experience so much.

It was more than the practical aspects - the whole stay at that lab was a great joy. I had good colleagues (though that doesn't mean we didn't fight! Oh yeah, all hell did break loose once!), and the few postdocs who were there at the same time, we still keep in touch regularly. The PI and postdocs got along well. We had many a discussion on how things should be run, what science is, what universities were, etc.
As she had moved from the US, I think she brought with her a more relaxed approach to running a lab - a lab where the PI was ready to get stuck and get dirty. She was the one who would do the odd jobs, like putting in glassware in the dishwasher, or make up media, because she believed that the postdocs should be just producing results, not take up time by doing random tasks which she could do as easily.
She really did influence the way I thought, and I think I was educated and mentored by her, more than I would have imagined during a postdoc.

How I became a scientist - Part One

Following on from reading the post in "In the pipeline" regarding what made me go into chemistry, I thought I'd write what happened to me.

When I was little, we used to have a lot of picture encyclopedias at home. I don't know if they do it in English, but it was all in Japanese, and had loads of pretty pictures. These were all produced from a publisher known for producing mass market scientific books for children to adults. Anyway, we had it all (well, mostly), from astronomy, to the planets, animals, fish and birds. The only thing missing was insects, and that probably explains why I'm not that fond of them critters nowadays.

My father also had a telescope, and we used to set it up in the garden of the apartment we lived in. We would spend hours there, and at that time he was really into photography and astronomy. Hence he would take photos of constellations.
At that time, he used to buy books with photos taken from various observatories in the world, from Kitt Peak (I remember the name well, because the photo of the Solar Telescope really was shocking to see - as a child it was hard to believe that was a telescope!) to Lowell (I think) and the great Palomar observatory.
Speaking of which, I was also interested in Greek and Roman mythology, but it all stems from my love of stars. I learned where the 88 constellations were, and a lot of the Greek mythology, but it all stemmed from reading a viewing those fabulous photos of stars in those books. I owe my scientific curiousity to those photographers who took them!

Anyway, so in my early life, I wanted to become an astronomer.
That was before A-level physics.

To tell you the truth, a lot of the interest was actually visual - I liked the colours, or the great pictures. I still have a weakness for fabulous immunofluorescence photos (yes, yes, the Molecular Probes website is porn for me).

We also had a subscription to the Gakken series of monthly magazines for children. Basically, these were magazines which came with a present, which would be an example experiment that you can do at home with the help of your parents. Obviously, no chemicals were dispatched, and they tended to veer more towards physics or even technology.


So that was me in my pre-teen years.
Once I hit the teens, I started reading comic books, and one very famous comic in Japan was called "Doubutsu-no-oishasan" or literally translated, "The Doctor of Animals", by Noriko Sasaki. The story revolves around two undergrad veterinary science students. But it wasn't them who inspired me to become a PhD student and a postdoc. It was Miss Seiko Hishinuma, the PhD student doing research into Chlamydia, forever trying to grow up bacteriophages in E. coli, and always letting them die while her supervisor, Prof. Sugawara, always kept his culture in tiptop condition.
If it wasn't for (now) Dr. Hishinuma, I wouldn't be here.
Am I the only person who followed into the footsteps of a comic...not even hero, a minor character?

Anyway, that comic was great, and it inspired me to find out more in the world of research. That's why I became a PhD student.

During the teens, while I was studying Chemistry in my school, I had a few textbooks with colour panels of reactions. Inorganic chemistry was the most colourful. No one can beat Mn for sheer colour. To me, organic was boring, because none of the compounds you made as a 15 year old was coloured. They were all colourless.

So, visual stimulation came in again. When I went on to do Chemistry as a degree, I chose to take up all the available inorganic courses (which didn't involve theoretical chemistry - yuck), as well as courses on biochemistry and biology related fields.

And that's why I chose to do a bio-inorganic chemistry thesis, because my supervisor was the only person I knew who did anything remotely involving proper live bacteria and chemistry.



So in all, what I can say from that is - parents, buy lots of picture books.
Even if you can't afford a chemistry kit, at least that will make the child interested in science - whether it be biology, physics, or chemistry, as long as the child is interested and curious about science, it will serve the child well in later life.