Shut up

If there is one thing that hasn't changed in the lab, it's the presence of Bunny. You know the type of person who just has to strike up a conversation with you. They would rather talk than sit through silence. It's tiring to come up with something to say to her, to converse about, because you know, my life isn't all that exciting. I get up, go to work, come home, eat, sleep.

Anyway, Bunny has to talk. All the time. Even when you indulge her in a conversation in the morning, she has to ask you how things are straight after lunch. Often, I don't have anything to say to her, so I do the old trick of reversing the situation and asking her about herself.

As she likes talking, she knows a lot of people - hence she has a lot of gossipy information. Which is okay, I enjoy listening to that kind of stuff, becaues it gives me more info (however tainted) to judge and understand certain situations.
The problem with Bunny, is that often, her output is flawed. She might say certain things about certain institutions, certain PIs, etc., but you can only really believe a part of it. I haven't figured out whether it is because she is shortsighted, she doesn't have the whole information, or just misinterpretation (and when it involves her, the she always plays victim). But certain things are so obvious to me, that you wonder what she believes and where she gets the information.

This was made apparent when she was talking about her Ph.D. supervisor a while ago. She has always had an....antagonistic relationship with her supervisor, and I think it is a two way thing. She has an attitude problem, and he's a piece of shit. Not a good combo.
Anyway, so throughout the years, we in the lab have been bombarded by her comments and complaints and whinging about him. And then suddenly, a few months ago when I asked her how her thesis was coming along, she was sympathetic to him - even defending him when I slagged him off (which I thought would make her happy, since there was an ally listening to her). Then now, it has reverted back to "he's a piece of shit" attitude.
Which makes you think.

I'm all for changing minds, and evolving ideas. But this change was uncharacteristic to say the least, that it kinda surprised me. What did he do to make her change her mind, even for a few days? It must have been one hell of a carrot he was dangling in front of her (ugh, that just sounds so wrong!).

Bunny didn't explain the carrot to me at least, so I am left with a little confusion and a fair amount of mistrust in her words.


BTW, I figure that this lack of talkativeness from my part partly stems from the fact that almost everything is under control - I have no reason to fret and complain and whinge at the moment. I feel okay, no problems, so I don't need to vent. Yet.

Misanthropy and contempt

The previous post has opened up certain bitterness I hold towards others, for better or for worse.

I don't like a lot of women who I have had to work with. Women are crap that way. They like politicking, sticking to groups (why the f$%k do you have to go the goddamn toilet in groups?) and generally bitching or gossiping about everyone. Some have a mentality of an 18-year old, and they are 30. I fucking hate girls.
This probably stems from some bullying I received when I was younger - and it was always girly groups that did it. Don't you just hate them? I do. I think they are pathetic, but unfortunately, group dynamics dictate that a black sheep is ostracised.

I don't understand this "men only - women only" divide that occurs in this country. In a social setting - no, let me define this. In a group of couples comprising mainly of British people, the group often segregates into "men only" or "women only" sections. They don't mix.
This came to light when I went to dinner with such a group one evening, and ended up sitting on a long table. I always thought it was good social manners to mingle, so that the person sitting directly next to you and opposite you are of the opposite sex. And so on, so you have, on one side of a table, m-f-m-f-m-f-m-f-m seating arrangements. This didn't happen. All the girls sat on end, and all the boys on the other, like m-m-m-m-f-f-f-f. Like, what is this, the sixth form prom or something?
And you know what these people talk about? The boys - they talk about football, rugby, drinking. Girls, they talk about makeup, fashion, and gossip. There is no witty banter, no intellect at all. What irks me more is that these people are actually "intelligent" people (so-called due to their having a postgraduate degree of some kind).

I hate people who are indecisive with a capital I. I know someone like that; you probably do to. You know, the kind of person when you take them to a new restaurant, they take 15 minutes to decide on the menu. Hell, by the time they've decided, I've decided on my 3-course meal, wine, ate the bread and the starter. It's just fucking food. Get over it. You won't get food poisoning if it is a restaurant worth their salt.
It's like...they can't bear to decide, just in case they make the wrong decision. To the detriment of anyone else on the effing table.

I hate people who don't take responsibility for what they say. People who think they can joke about a sensitive topic, because "everyone else does it" or "I thought you could take it". Can these people not take a hint? Or just have manners?
It's amazing how it is these exact people think they have manners and are witty conversationalists, when all they are are just irritating pricks who other people tolerate rather than enjoy. You'd think they would get the hint, but oooooh no, they have their heads so stuck up their own backside that they are oblivious to them.

Grrrrr. Rant o-ver!

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.

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.

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?

Back with a vengeance

Went in to (ex-) lab the other day, to remind my (ex-) boss "I'm still around, hey, what's happening" and to chat (i.e. gossip) with other people. Actually, I couldn't wait to get the gossip. You see, GorrillaGrrrl was back from her never-ending maternity leave. And I so wanted to hear what she was going to be like.

(To fill you in, GorrilaGrrrl is a female PI who has a history of treating male lab workers like shit, dumping all her problems on female PhD students, and whinging and whining about how terrible her life is. All this when she has a 6-figure house, a partner who is a Prof (and he only relocated because they gave her a position too), a baby she has been longing for (which apparently he wasn't so keen on, oh yeah, he isn't keen on marrying her either), and took a year of maternity leave. During which her email account was actually inactivated (so you can infer that she really was not doing any kind of work).)

I couldn't get hold of the BLT (Brilliant Lab Tech) so I settled for Mr.Strauss. And he did not disappoint me. Apparently, the first thing she did was to complain that she didn't have an office, and that no one moved her stuff from the old cold room (which is to be demolished) to the new cold room (down the corridor).
So predictable.
Anyway, you would think that she has no right to complain if she went AWOL. I know, for a fact, that she couldn't be reached, because I emailed her in a CC email once. And it bounced back, which means either (1) account was closed, or (2 - and more likely) account was full of crap mail.

Also, exactly who did she think was going to help her? She currently has NO ONE working for her. No student, no postdoc, no tech, and the lone bench space that was allocated to her student is now a storage space of all the things she didn't store away.
She even expected out BLT to do all the dirty work. And you know, our BLT is helpful if you are nice. But no one is going to help you if you send an arsey email demanding that they do the job. This is already sounding like the typical Type II PI over at YFS.

Ah, I am so looking forward to going back!

Things that make me think

I went for a drink with the Fly Boys (and the Poodle) the other day, and left feeling a little irritated by a few things. This is mainly because I am older and wiser, and know to let people who I don't get along, be themselves. They don't.

We ended up talking about the boyfriend of J.D. (ex-colleague). He is older - divorced with a kid, probably a bit bitter about life, definitely sarcastic. And they were telling me how he is such a depressing, bitter, irritating, guy. I said I can't agree, because all my dealings with him have been short, maybe not-so-sweet, but not bad enough to put him in the shit-pile.

The whole topic of conversation was how at a party, JD's boyfriend did not endear himself to anyone else.

Anyway, I was sitting there, trying to put light on things - he is older, and there are times when you don't feel like even putting in effort to try and talk to a naive 20-something, who are intelligent (and knows it), self-centred, self-righteous, blinkered people, who are not used to dealing with people who are not like them.

Hell, I sometimes feel like not talking to the Fly Boys, because I feel like that.

And the Fly Boys, especially the Bear, have a real problem with that.

Picture this. You are at a partner's party, all the 20-something as mentioned above. You are, say, mid-40's, seen it and heard it all, and you are only there because of your partner. If that was me, I will act differently - I would probably try and engage with them, to make myself less miserable. But that is me. Maybe this person doesn't need to do that.

And this was what I was trying to tell the Bear. And he just didn't get it.

His point was that, if he was the only person trying to talk to this guy, in a group of people who were ignoring him, he expects him to give back some of the courtesy.
I was telling him that, if it was you, you would have done that. But he is not you. He has a different personality. So you can't say that he "should" have treated you in such a way.

You have to understand that the Bear is a bit of a sports jock. He likes being part of a team, and he likes to think he is doing a service by being friends with even the most despicable human. So for him, this boyfriend dude giving him the shift was not acceptable (hence he had to brand him inhuman).

Anyway, the thing is - in a group of 5 people, all of them agreed with the Bear, and not one actually stopped to think about it.
This is a bullying mentality.
And I hate it.
These are people with (or studying for) a PhD. And they gang up on someone who has more experience, and probably a more interesting life than them? And they don't quesiton it?

I remember J said something like that a while ago, that these people are in a group, and they have this group mentality, that the Bear leads (subconsciously I think, because he is happy to lead, and the others are submissive). That's not bad, but can you not stop and think about it yourself, and come to your own conclustion, instead of worrying if you are outside of the group's way of thinking?
Sad.

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!

Dickheads of the world unite!

Since I'm reading random blogs (because my router is out of action), let me go back to my favourite subject, Mr.Strauss! I was reading this over on FSP, which I admit I never read normally. But that post reminded me of the time when Mr.Strauss accused me of being biased because I was a woman...I think the term he used was "oh, this sisterhood thing".

Anyway, I was there with our brilliant technician and Mr.Strauss, describing the antics of the GQboy, to our new postdoc Gable. Now, GQboy was going out with Minnie, who I used to sit next to in the old office. Minnie with all her faults, was a nice girl - she had her own little troubles, but can always drum herself up to do stuff; she was just a really pleasant, nice person to have in the lab (and sit next to).
Now, GQboy and Minnie split up, about 9 months before she left. Minnie was single for all that time, but has now found a new boyfriend. GQboy has been out of luck.

Enter Mr.Strauss. Never really known Minnie (I don't think their paths ever crossed, but I may be wrong), but got talking to GQboy (because he was taking SO LONG to finish off his sorry PhD). Mr.Strauss, being dumped himself, automatically sides with GQboy, and slags off Minnie.

Now that is what I take offence to.
He didn't know Minnie, so why is he slagging her off like that? Most people who knew the two always thought she was too good for him anyway. I mean, GQboy is someone who:
(1) thought the white bits in black pudding were lymphocytes, and
(2) when a professor of andrology came to see his poster at a meeting, replied "what, is that a study of robots?" (instead of sperm).
(There are other famous tales about him but I can't remember, to tell you the truth).

You know, you shouldn't really slag someone off like that in front of a person who never met her. And I mean slag off. Like saying "oh yeah, she dumped him and just went out straight with another guy (not true) and keeps calling him back when she's around (not true also)". Jesus, what, are we 12? Mr.Strauss is 40 for fuck sake. He should know better than playing these playground stuff.
It's just because he was dumped. And he stalked her for a while, and has this major bitter thing going on against women in general. And the thing is, no matter how many times people insinuate that he is sad/pathetic/a loser, he won't do something about it.

To think I am going back to that...but at least I won't be in the same office...

On death

I guess there won't be much more scientific posts on this blog, so here's something a little bit more personal for me.


My other half's father died recently. We just had the funeral, and the other half is getting back to life as it used to be. Me, well, I'm still unemployed. (And enjoying it.)
Which gives me plenty of time to reflect upon the death of a person, and how that affects the living. Not just the bereaved, but the people surrounding them.

As for the bereaved - for some, it is a shocking experience, which results in a numbing of the senses and an unrealistic feeling. For others, it is a natural, "normal" occurance that is realistic in every sense of the word, and hence mourning comes naturally - they feel sad, they cry, but do not bottle things up and "carry on with life".

The thing is, I can understand both situations. As I have been through two sudden deaths in my immediate family - my father's 12 years ago, and my younger sister's 3 years ago - I guess I know better than most people of my age what to expect (also because I was over 20 when both deaths happened). It's a thing where experience helps, not just with the practicalities (which quite frankly I am crap at) but also with what emotions and thoughts you go through.
It's one thing to try and understand what a bereaved person is going through, but it's another to truly understand what they are going through. Feel shocked and numb or isolated and lonely? Been there, done that.

I can sympathize with the negative emotions and thoughts that comes with what other people expect from you, the bereaved. It's amazing how people are clueless about bereavement. It is an uncomfortable situation when people silently expect you to get on with life, as it used to be, when you know that things won't be the same as before. How they expect you not to be different - well, they say then understand, but can they?
This sarcasm stems from the fact that both death in my family occured through suicide - so I lost someone close to me not once, but twice, through what essentially is described as "their choice".
I am guessing that not many people will understand the sheer desolation and isolation I felt after my sister's death. It is one thing to be in that special group where you are bereaved through suicide, but a second time?
And people really don't have a clue how to react in that situation. I did have a lot of anger about it, which I can understand now is natural.


In the end, you evolve into a different person as a result - well, I did. I think you'd be a fool to think you will be the same person - anyway, just "living" results in evolution of a person.

How do I think I have changed over the last three years?
Well, I give more credit and care and attention to the now.
And I also have a stronger sense of myself, a stronger core if you will.
And I've gained 10kg.........

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.

A bit more advice?

Following on from the previous post, what makes me so laid back and nonchalant about things?

It's partly my experience - my younger sister died a few years ago, by suicide. Now that really makes you think about life, what it means, and how you can live it.

Other than that, I would suggest you buy Richard Carlson's "Don't sweat the small things at work". It is a small book, but if you read it, and think about what it says - really think - and understand it, it teaches you so many things. Not just about work, but about life as well.
I haven't read the original "Don't sweat the small stuff", but I would guess it is a similar book. Well worth a read, for anyone, and especially for people who find daily life a grind.

And very nice to read in the bathtub full of warm, aromatic oil infused water, at the end of a stressful day.

Don't use that card

Mr.Strauss confessed today that last week, he had an... altercation with Bunny (a Ph.D. student I've written about before). They have a history together - they constantly bicker and get on each others' nerves like nobody's business. I mean, it is amazing what kind of pathetic petty thing they fight over.



Anyway, this time, the poor object of their affection/attention was a small plastic drying rack to put plates in (to dry, obviously). This plastic fella was bought by Mr.Strauss, for the sole purpose of... you guessed it, drying plates. It was put in the communal drying oven.

Now, they have a history, Bunny and Mr.Strauss, in that whenever glass plates for westerns were broken, it was always anyone BUT Bunny (and her PI's group) buying the replacements. Her PI is stingy, but that doesn't mean you don't buy communal consumables (I consider glass plates to be akin to consumables, at the rate they are broken) when you are using the communal stuff all the time.

Bunny meanwhile has taken to buying her own plates (not communal) to use for westerns (the running equipment and buffers being communal.

Mr.Strauss found last week that Bunny had removed the semi-communal plastic rack from the communal drying oven, on her own bench, to dry her plates. So Mr.Strauss duly went to her to ask her to put it back to the oven when she was done with using it.



Apparently, according to Mr.Strauss, Bunny had a right go at him for that.

And she brought out the "My mom is suffering from terminal cancer, and I am going through a tough time, so leave me alone" card.

And she went to get the sympathy vote by bitching to two other female members of the lab, who took it upon themselves to go and chide Mr.Strauss.


See, yesterday, I felt sorry for Mr.Strauss. Being male in a majority female lab must be shitty, especially when the girls have made their mind up about you. I thought the two female members of the lab who went to show their dissatisfaction of Mr.Strauss' behaviour was out of line - they obviously didn't bother to ask about his side of the story before telling him off. Which I would have, because I'm nosy and like to get facts straight. Nothing better and more interesting than getting both sides of the story and then making your mind up.


So today, I went and did a bit of investigative reporting, from two people who were in the office when it all happened.


It seems Mr.Strauss was less than honest in when he told me. Of course, knowing him, I should've known that he was more than persistent when he asked for the rack to be put back. Bunny apparently told him that she wasn't in on Tuesday because she had to take her mom to chemo. Mr.Strauss said that wasn't good enough. Apparently.


Now, I know that I'll never know the true facts as it happened - maybe I should install a camera in that office - but this incident perfectly sums up the situation in our lab.

Bunny really needs to grow up. We aren't bloody teenagers anymore. We WORK in a lab.
And you know, I really hate it when people use that sympathy vote. Bunny is what, 26? She should know better than to blow up at someone when he asks for something. Knowing what a person Mr.Strauss is, she should just ignore him and say "yes, I will do that" - because that is the answer he is looking for.

With Mr.Strauss, well, he is beyond help. Being 40, he can't change the way he is, or learn anything from it. He is what he is. But he should learn to have a little bit of sympathy for a histeric girl who thinks her mom having terminal cancer is the biggest problem in her life, so much so that every other "problem" in her life pales in comparison.


Do you think I am being harsh to Bunny and her situation?
Well, this is coming from a person who suddenly lost her father at age 24. I can sympathize, and do feel sorry for what she is going through. But she at least has time to say goodbye, and take good care of her mother.
I'm sure Bunny is doing all she can for her mother, and that her mind is full. But that is no reason to act unprofessionally and to lash out at someone (with little provocation, as far as I know) for no reason. If you feel pressured, take time off. Go see a counsellor, so you can talk things out. I did that, and it helped. It helped to know that someone was there for me, not judging me, and really listening to what I was saying and going through. And all that, from a more or less neutral standpoint. The counsellors help you, but you are doing the work of talking things through.

Maybe she doesn't want to go to such things, because she is scared. She just wants to talk to people who would go "Awwwww, that's terrible, the world is so harsh, and you're trying so hard...".

i.e. the Sympathy vote.

Evil postdocs

Following on from Evil PIs, here's the postdoc version. But I realised halfway that I was mostly talking about Mr.Strauss....anyway.

(1) Postdocs coming into work at 11am. Not professional. Making excuses just makes it worse.

(2) Postdocs "disappearing" when their PIs are on holiday. Not professional.

(3) Postdocs taking a weekday off when they have to come in during the weekend. I thought working hard was a byword in postdocdom. And ES cells don't split dishes themselves.

(4) Postdocs telling PhD students that they don't go to seminars because "it's got nothing to do with me, and it's a waste of time". And that includes seminars given by the leaders of their field, including Nobel Laureates. Um, aren't you supposed to be teaching your student? By example?

(5) Postdocs acting as if doing experiments are a chore. We all have our likes and dislikes, but you get paid for doing it. So do it.

(6) Generally moody postdocs, who expect things to go their way. It's amazing how people get pissed off for using what is a communal equipment. Um, that's why we have rota sheets, timetables, and...email.

(7) Postdocs "using" technicians and students to do their job.
I once saw this, where the postdoc told the technician to do a luciferase assay, with some plates she had frozen earlier. No explanation as to what the experiment was, and in fact, we had been told by the PI that he wanted the technician "to be involved in a project, so she feels part of the team". Why couldn't the postdoc do it herself? She wasn't that busy as I could see, and frozen plates can be kept frozen for a while (so time wasn't of the essence). It is a boring job, but that doesn't mean you can delegate it to a technician.

Evil PIs

Some examples of what I consider unprofessional or unscientific or just plain stupid conduct from PIs. All experienced first hand.

(1) A PI tells her student to do mini-prep from transforming bacteria. There are 30 samples. PI tells student to freeze down the samples - by spinning 1 ml of all 30 samples, then resuspending them in glycerol solution. The common, less time-consuming procedure is just to make a 1:1 dilution of culture with glycerol solution. Student suggests that other people in the lab (shared with a few more groups) do it that way. PI gets angry, and tells off the student - and insists the culture should be frozen her way.
And this is for a mini-prep culture, which might not even be usable.

(2) PI tells his student and postdoc, "you don't have to go to the lab seminar series if it isn't related to your project". Lab seminar series consists of talks by other members of the lab, who are doing different projects by other PIs who share the lab with said PI.

(3) PI keeps on changing lab meetings at less than 24 hour notice (and on a different site which are 10 minutes drive away), despite students and postdocs telling him that sometimes you have experiments running - and that it is not feasable to attend.

(4) PI (same one as ) also does not turn up to lab meeting on time - keeps students and postdocs waiting, sometimes for an hour. He does not make clear his whereabouts (which is fine), or even why. He becomes angry when people suggest not having a lab meeting at that time, and changing the time.

(5) PI shouting abuse at another postdoc, who doesn't work for her (but for another PI), in front of everyone in the lab (students and postdocs).

(6) PI telling a PhD student that he "hates" a postdoc who has been working for him for 3 months. Probably because of personality problems.

(7) A moody PI, so much so that people in his lab actually worry about what mood he is in. Also, the validity and quality of data seem to change with his moods.

That's just a selection from the PIs. Now let me start on evil postdocs and evil students...

Postdocs vs. PIs part deux

I was thinking about the "discussion", and you know what? I realised that it's actually quite stupid.

So what is the number one reason for having a science type blog? It must be that the writer has something he wants to say. Whether it be an anonymous bitching, or honest pondering about science, it doesn't matter. But I think those two are the rough divisions - personal confessions about how one feels etc., or personal pondering and musing on the current state of one's research area.

So taking the more personal blogs (like mine), it is more probable that the person writing the blog will focus on the negative. Why? Because if something happy happens, you don't have to share it with others to confirm your thought, or why you feel so upset. I think people do tend to focus more on the negative aspects of life (i.e. anything causing upset, anger, etc. at work) rather than the positive. Well, I do. And anyway, I don't think I'd read a blog very much if all of it was "this worked, that worked, I got a paper accepted, I got a grant, I got a lectureship la-di-da".

I think I bitch about people in my lab, here in my blog, because (1) I want to keep my real-life friends happy and not hear endless bitching tales about people in the lab (I still tell them about what is happening, but I can repeat, and repeat, and repeat...and I don't think that is fun listening), (2) I need to let it out. It's a stress reliever for me. And (3) because writing it down is like talking and I am sorting things out in my head whilst bitching out loud.
Also it is like a persona, mental note about things. It's like keeping a diary, I guess.

Anyway, that's what I view YFS, and Propter Doc's blogs to be. I read them, and I think, and I empathize with what they have to go through. And a lot of it is negative, because that is what people just focus on.


The alternative is, I am sure there are a lot of postdocs out there who don't read blogs, or who don't write blogs. It's not a necessary output for them. Maybe they are happy. Maybe they can digest an upsetting occurance at work more easily than, people like me. Ur, maybe they don't have anything interesting to say about science or their lab mates.
So if you think that the majority of postdocs don't actually have a bad postdoc experience (at least, bad enough to want to blog and bitch)... and that people tend to focus on negative aspects when they write personal blogs... and that is only the few that bother to write blogs... then it figures that what you are reading in a postdoc blog would be the crystallization of anger, upset, negative feeling that a postdoc has over their postdoc career. If that makes any sense.

So in fact, DrugMonkey going into how postdocs overstate the importance etc., seems like an over-reaction by a PI to me. Why would you counteract about how postdocs don't understand, if you knew that the postdoc blogosphere was actually only a certain dimension of a postdoc's life?
(And in actual fact, YFS has previously focussed on positive mentoring she received)

You know, I'm sure if I meet YFS or PropterDoc, it will be an interesting experience - because you get to experience that whole person, not just what they bother to write in a blog.

Three types of PIs?

In Japan, there are a few haiku's which was written by an 18th century to exemplify the personalities of three famous Daimyo's (leader) of the 16th century. It starts off:

"If the cuckoo refused to sing..."

And the reply to that is

(1) Wait until it sings
[Tokugawa Ieyasu 徳川家康]

(2) Try to make it sing
[Toyotomi Hideyoshi 豊臣秀吉]

(3) Kill the bird
[Oda Nobunaga 織田信長]


The answers demonstrate each leader's temperament - patience; curiosity and creativity; short-temper and difficult.
Which leader are you?

Too much time

Reading this post over at The Chem Blog, which alludes to why Tenderbutton is no more, it made me think about how people obviously have too much time on their hands, as well as how the readership (judging from the comments) were nerdy (and had too much time on their hands, and needs a life outside the lab......).

It's a funny thing, because when Dylan decided not to blog, for me, it was like "Awwww.....really? Don't go. But if you do, well, that's your decision". And that was that. I didn't really think about it afterwards.
In a paralle to that, I am thinking about the situation at my workplace. There is a student I work with, where everything is a REALLY BIG DEAL for her. It's like, she is living in a soap operatic world. Everyone is doing something because they have an ulterior motive. I sometimes wonder why she bothers putting in all the energy into talking about it.
Surely it is far easier to just accept what happens, as it is. Of course, there are times where it helps to think about the ulterior motive (academic science is full of politics after all), but there are also times when that is a waste of time. Little things like, "Person X didn't help me", or "Person Y is a nasty bitch because she never smiles" is such a waste of time.

The thing is, people like that really do have too much time on their hands. If they had other commitments (like kids) which take up their spare time, they won't have time to think about things like that. Actually, that is one thing I learnt from the Clone Master. She can sound rude, but she isn't really. She's just, well, Chinese, and a mom, and always running around trying to fit everything in.
The funny thing about the aforementioned student is that she is not very confident. She can't do things on her own. She can't go to the gym on her own. She can't go to seminars and talks on her own. She has to be one of the group. Maybe that's why she has to talk so much. To convince people that she is interesting.