Stoopid Stoodents

Gobble, ST and myself were talking about this new undergrad project student who was working with us. The same one who took my set of Gilsons and put his name on it, even though he is only with us for two months max.

Anyway, this student has been really really really testing Gobble's patience. As in, he uses every reagent that she has, and then goes on to use everyone else's reagent (this has happened for antibodies, MW markers, films...).
As in, he plates out cells onto coverslips, and does immunofluorescence...without checking that the cells have actually stuck down. (Oops, there goes 200 pounds worth of antibodies down the drain!)
As in, he shuts down the hood and does not replace the hood cover. The hood cover might only be useful to keep cats and dogs out (and Drosophila or Daddy-long-legs would get in...they probably would even with the hood on...), but it's a nice touch to put that back on.

Apparently, when he started, he also lacked the ability to take down notes. A couple of people who had taught him noticed, suggested him to take down notes, and he still didn't get the message. According to Gobs, he is very good at calculations - can calculate molarities and stuff, real quick. But when it comes to the detail of the protocol (very important) he forgets. I mean, he forgets to put cells in the wells, for chrissakes.
And what's worse is that he doesn't admit to his mistakes. Whenever Gobs asks him "have you done X?" his first reaction is "yes". She has to ask him three times before he admits to forgetting it, or not doing it....just telling her the plain facts.
I can understand that part of it might come from apprehension to Gobs' reaction - he might be scared of it, he might be worrying etc., but as a project student you should be in the lab to learn. And make mistakes. And as a supervisor, Gobs' job is to point it out.

ST thinks that it's just students in general. When she showed Dolly some technique or other, she noticed the same thing with Dolly - no note taking. And whatever notes and protocols that ST gave her, the next time in the lab, Dolly would "forget" it on her desk.

ST thinks that it must be students nowadays - they just don't take notes anymore. They are given handouts in lectures, given protocols in labs, all reagents are ready for them. Too much mollycoddling. I think there is a lot of truth in that.


I don't know what is the best way to deal with this kind of stuff. I remember when I had that stellar project student to deal with, I knew she didn't have any experience before in the lab, so I told her that I would do the procedure three times with her - show her once, do it together the second time, then watch her do it the third time.
I also remember threatening another PhD student whom I had to teach, that she better take notes down because I am not going to show her twice. I've since mellowed a bit, and don't say that, but since the student still remembers me saying that to this day, it must have worked.

It probably is better to lay down the rules before starting, like "I am not going to repeat myself so you better write EVERYTHING down". And make sure the student understands who is the supervisor here - the student is only there on your terms, not his.
I only lay down the rules first because I don't want any misunderstandings that might stem from the fact that I am a foreigner. So by being honest, I cut down on any misunderstanding that might stem from miscommunication (through difference of culture, and not language, for me).

It's all about covering your own ass. Really.

Jerk

How does one deal effectively with jerks?
Not the chicken kind, but the human one?

It has happened to me several times with different people. It goes like this - I piss them off somehow, I get over it, they don't, then they make a joke (at my expense) or have to make a point with me, and they walk off.

I don't like being treated that way, and I think that if you are picking a fight, then you should at least let the other person get a word in. I think it is cowardly. And I am sensitive and that's why I'm getting upset over it as I write here.
(I also think they are baiting me, since I have a quick temper. Although this baiting doesn't work when you realise that it is a bait)

Today, it was Mac going off on how I leave my lysis buffer for up to an hour. He then went on to say "Isn't it instant? It lyses instantly. I do it instantly. It works". To which my reply would be - well, fine, but I do it my way. It works, so what is your problem, and more importantly, what is your point? (Thinking about it, this is obviously wrong - the protocol booklet for the assay specifically states "15 minutes or more for lysis", and the reason I put on my typed protocol 60 minutes is because I do other things whilst lysing, and it is to cover my ass by giving a range instead of sticking to a specific length of time)

I am guessing it all stems off from the morning, when I was stressed with the sheer number of plates I had to treat before lunch, and snapped at him when he wrongfully/foolishly tried to take away my ethanol spray bottle from near me whilst I was working in the hood (just before that, he was grumbling about how none of the spray bottles work, and I replied that they do, and if not why doesn't he just go and buy his own - I know the FS did that once because she was so pissed off with the spray bottle).
He also made a mistake in his treatment of his stable cell-line, which rendered that experiment useless.

I was angry at the end of the day. I don't expect to be treated like that, and I don't expect to be pushed and bullied.
I think maybe he doesn't like the fact that my experimental protocol is different from his, and I have a set way of doing things (another thing he had an issue with, was why when I harvest cells, I lyse the cell after freeze thaw, instead of lysis then freeze. I don't think it makes much difference, but he wants to do it his way - fine by me, you do it your way, I'll do it mine).
If he sits down and thinks about the difference, and he is happy from a scientific stand point that the difference makes no difference (ahem) to the result, then I don't care what he does. However, I, of course, will not take the responsibility when things go wrong. Like today.


Hmmm. Writing here has made me think about this. I might have a word with him tomorrow - I suspect that his behaviour is due to the frustration of the project, and he is picking for a fight.
I guess I'll ask him what the problem is - is it frustrating because things in the lab has changed, or the project is as clear as mud, or does he have a problem with my protocols?
Because if he can't follow what I am suggesting to him, then I really don't need all this shit. He can spend the time making stable cell-lines for me, and go help Gobble with her project - apparently that is what Big Boss told him.

Fine by me, whichever what way.
But I don't feel like I need to deal with that kind of shitty attitude, when I am in charge of this project.

Three heads good

Why is it that people seem to have this urge to re-name plasmids? For fuck sake, keep the name the same! If the maker of the plasmid deemed okay to name the plasmid a boring "pXYZ 13", use that fucking name!! If the maker of the plasmid deemed okay to name the plasmid "pABCD-EFG-HIJ" and you find that with your dirty handwriting, you can't fit it onto the eppendorf, practice writing smaller!!

I am sure that this re-naming of plasmids is the reason for our plasmid mayhem.

Anyway, as the title of this post states, today I had a meeting with Mac and ST, regarding our problematic plasmid. We are supposed to know what this plasmid is. It certainly does what it is supposed to do - it is a reporter construct with a Luc gene in it, and when I put it in cells and induce it, I get a reading for the Luc assay.
But the restriction digest is troublesome.

HindIII cuts once. I did that, and it (seemed to) cut.
Of course I didn't run the un-cut plasmid (because I never do these things, often it takes me three times to realise that that is a good idea).

ST tried cutting with HindIII and XhoI.
It cut once. It should cut out the insert. The whole reason why ST chose to cut using those two enzymes was that there was a note on the plasmid information page (in the oh-so-well kept plasmid files....not!) that read "HindIII and SmaI should cut out the insert" and that the SmaI site was inside the XhoI site (i.e. closer to the HindIII site on the multiple cloning site). So in theory, it should cut out the insert.
If it has an insert. But it has an insert, because I can induce it.

Mac tried cutting with that funny enzyme, ApaI. It didn't linearize.
It should. The ApaI site is not in the MCS, it is somewhere along the plasmid between the resistance gene and the Luc gene. It's there, and it should cut. But it didn't.

So people, even Sherlock Holmes will find this troublesome. Actually, he would, since he didn't have restriction enzymes.

Anyway, as we have a more pressing need to know what this plasmid X really is, we are going to try again and cut. And this time, send the darned thing to sequencing.
Sequencing should be easy, because this plasmid has been published on a paper detailing it's origin (actually Big Boss made it, and he made it by cutting the promoter region from one plasmid and stuck it in the Luc plasmid), and the sequences can be obtained from PubMed. So if we design a primer going upstream from the start of the Luc gene, we should cover whatever is inside that MCS...

You might be wondering why I didn't do that in the first place.
You see, I sort of took another person's word for this plasmid because I was really pressed to deliver results by the Big Boss (so indirectly it is Big Boss' fault). And anyway, Big Boss should really tell the other person to keep better records of the plasmids - that person has been working with BB the longest, and BB somehow implicitly trusts him. It seems like BB can't get rid of him now because he holds all the crucial information as to what plasmids are what and where they are in BB's vast empire.


The upside of this sorry circular (har-har!) tale is that Mac, ST and I had a good laugh about how this kind of thing would be good either as a final-year undergrad or a short-term M.Sc. project, or an exam question for a Mol Bio degree.
"Here is a mystery plasmid, with this bare backbone of information. Find out what it is"

It's plain plasmid archaeology.

WoT part 2.

I'm still irked from yesterday's seminars.
So I am thinking about the best way to put down a (first-year) Ph.D. student in seminars attended by PIs (including the student's supervisor). How do you go about that?

I guess the best way is to have an air of mild concern and irritation. Say something in a neutral tone, not friendly, but not aggressive either. Show concern about how the student may have had little time to prepare for the talk (which can be a back-handed way of telling her that "even if you prepared it well, it was a shit talk").
What would I have said yesterday?

To speaker 1, as I know her from Journal club, I guess I could comment on her talk before one such occasion. Shame that we aren't having anymore JC's for the summer. Anyway, my major concern really was that in her western blot, the protein was showing up about 20kDa above the expected size - which could mean that it is unspecific (species was different to the one Ab was raised in, so a possibility - and there were no controls. Actually, I don't know whether she did the same species control, which would have been the most obvious and easiest control, since everyone uses a human cell-line), or a post-translational modification (less likely).

To speaker 2....now that it a challenge.
"Okay, first of all, do you know how to use a graphics package like Adobe Photoshop? Because after you scan in your blots, you can rotate the imported scan to make the bands horizontal? And you can also change the blots from a colour figure to a grayscale one, which will make it easier for us, the audience, to see whether the band is there or not. And also, in Photoshop you can change the contrast and intensity to make is easier for us to see the difference in the bands.
You see, saying "trust me the band is there" - I can accept it from an established researcher who has shown other good quality blots in the talk. But I find it hard to accept it from you. I don't know you, or the quality of your daily experiments, and you might as well have brought the film in to show us to convince us.
I understand that you may not have known the audience expected for this talk, which is actually your responsibility to find out and to aim your talk to. And I can understand that you may not have had the time to fully prepare for the talk.
I think your talk was good, with a great introduction. But it is a real shame about the results, because you could have done a little more to convince the audience."


Granted, it's a pretty hard thing to say to a 1st year.
But I don't get paid to sit in a seminar that is shoddy, when I could be sitting in front of my plate reader reading luciferase assays.
Of course, I probably would never say that in a seminar full of PIs, since I am only a postdoc *sniggers*.

Stop complaining

We have a rota for the general lab duties, such as loading the dishwasher, emptying the drying oven, getting general stores stuff, etc. etc.. I'm not going to write about whether having a rota is a good thing or not - of course someone has to do something when there aren't any technicians specifically doing those jobs - but how people deal with others when they aren't doing their job.

When I find that I am tripping over rubbish bags because the person on the rota couldn't be bothered (or alternatively, was too "busy") to take the rubbish bins out to the collection point - I go and tell that person to do it. I just go up to him or her, and say "you are on the rota for bins. Can you do it today because I'm tripping over the bins".
Some people find offense at that (surprising, huh?) and talk about how they are too busy (...ahem...Bunny does...). To which I reply, "I don't care if you are busy, can you just do it? You're on the rota, and it's a health hazard".

I like to think I am being proactive, and that I am pulling my weight, and that I am teaching some young stupid naive postgrad what it means to be the bottom rung of the ladder. Bottom of the pecking order. The so-called gopher.

Anyway, most of the time it works, and I don't see the reason to change it - it's not like I am asking for a favour, in which case I would be more tactful and nice. It's a fucking rota. Everyone has to do it. So shut the fuck up and do your fucking job. End of Story.


Faced with a similar situation, other people either (1) whinge about it continuously to anyone that would listen, or (2) do the rota job themselves (i.e. do the other person's job). Then whinge about it constantly to anyone that would listen.

Anyway, my point is - what does those two actions achieve? Number 2 might sound like proactiveness, and it is, if you don't do the second bit (whinging). But most people in my lab can't help but complain. It must be the Bunny effect - she fucking does it all the time. Oh well, I do live in a country full of whingers.

The two points above doesn't teach the slacking person anything - if anything, they get away with it. So the best course of action would be to ask them.

Maybe some people think that is confrontational, and is too aggressive for their liking. But it doesn't have to be. And anyway, isn't whinging and complaining behind the back, more like being passive aggressive?

You piss me off!

Alas, it wasn't long before a particular person pisses me off at work. Remember Bunny, the non-stop verbal diarrhoea girl? She has annoyed me immensely today.

Basically, she was rude. She talked over me (actually, no, she SHOUTED over what I was trying to say), and made a big deal out of a small deal.
This morning, one of our electrical socket circuits cut off, which led to the increase in temperature of the -80 freezer to -69, at which point it started beeping off. The same circuit had bug shakers on. Bunny, who heard the freezer beeping, enters the lab, and I tell her that it's cut off, the circuit's gone, and the bug shaker's gone too. At which point, she turns to the two other lab people - in her group - and shouts over what I was saying.
She was shouting about whether they had anything in the bug shaker.
I was trying to say that bugs will be okay, and that we should get an extension to the freezer.

You don't shout over someone else, let alone someone who is older than you, and more senior than you by age and experience.
That's just rude.

She has started working as a postdoc, even without finishing her Ph.D....I have no problems with that, but I feel that she is becoming this "mother hen", this aunty character within the lab - overseeing everyone, butting her nose in everyone's business, trying to solve any technical difficulties (so everyone thinks she is resourceful, i.e. great), etc.

It's a vague feeling I had, and more and more it is being cemented.


Yesterday, I was making up dilutions on my bench, when Bunny breezes into our lab, to get some distilled water. During which she asked me, "How was my weekend?"
I wasn't particularly happy mainly because of in-law stupidity (now that is another post!), and maybe my scowl was showing. So I replied, "Fine". Bunny breezes out.

What the fuck is the point in a conversation starter when you don't stick around to hear the extrapolation? That is one thing I still don't understand about the English. Why don't they stick around to hear the answer? It only takes a minute. So rude!

Anyway, of course, the more mature and calm part of me thinks that Bunny probably was concerned about my frown. However unlikely that may be. Which leads to another part of me thinking it's really none of her business anyway.


So now I am biding my time until I can brush her off and make her cry.

The Little things

It was the little things that made me want to stay with the same boss, on this new project. And it's the little things that is making me think about moving to another job. One week back to the lab, and I am already thinking it was a waste of time.
It's not the boss, or the project. It's the little things in the lab that is making me think.

Let's see.
First of all, my transfecting reagent failed to arrive. If I don't transfect today, it means that I don't get to do a reporter assay until Saturday. And I am not coming in on Saturdays.
I just wish that the ordering people would just tell us when they are going on holiday, and what their contingency plan is. I don't want to have to order something, thinking it will be ordered, then finding out two days later that the person who normally does it, is on holiday. That is just not acceptable - it shouldn't be my problem. Actually it isn't, but affects me.

I was asked (nicely) by GorillaGrrrl that the tryptone and yeast extract on the communal shelf was hers, and that she was surprised that people were using it. I told her to label it, and put it on her bench.
She also mentioned that when she moved in to the current lab, there were only 3 PIs, and that shelf was hers. I told her, "oh", insteady of "that was 4 years ago, things have changed, move on, and anyway, where were you after your maternity leave for six months? Oh, and if you were so worried about other people using it, why didn't you tell your student - the last non-GorillaGrrrl member of her group, who left a year ago - to keep it on her bench?"

She also pointed out that one of the Gilsons on Doc's bench was hers, and she took it back. She only asked moi, because she thought Doc's bench was mine. Well, fuck you too dumbass - I hadn't been standing in front of Doc's bench to do my morning's miniprep work, have I?
Anyway, someone probably inadvertently put it there, since I hadn't seen that Gilson there before (like, last week), so instead of just taking it, you have to make a point.
As you can probably guess, I am not fond of the GorillaGrrrrl. She "makes a mountain out of a molehill" according to our own ST. She just says certain things to make a point, and a big deal. I'm glad she ain't my boss. But with her insecurity, she probably won't employ an experienced, intelligent postdoc like yours truly. Ahem.

Then I found out that we were lacking a few agarose gel trays. I swear that when my contract finished last year, there were at least 2 large agarose trays still functional in the lab. I can't find them anywhere now, and I asked others but they seem to recall that it may have been broken.
Gees, if you break something that is communal, shouldn't you replace them from your grant? I can just imagine who it was (or more correctly, which PI's group) did that.
Anyway, I just couldn't be bothered anymore. I did my mini-preps, all 40 samples. I did my single restriction digest. But I couldn't run my samples today to double check whether the plasmids were what people said they were.


Oh, and good thing that I check plasmids. I am beginning to wonder why people keep insisting on calling plasmids the same. Lets say we have the ABCD reporter gene plasmid. Say ABCD is a well studied promoter region. Of course, people are going to make all kinds of different deletion to see which part does what. And the thing is, now, I have in my hands 4 different ABCD-Luc reporter plasmid, all with the same name.
I know one was made by someone in our lab. One was given to us by Dr.L. But there is another one, again made by Dr.L, but as far as I know, the plasmids are different by 1kb (so my guess is that the latter is a deletant of the former). Then there is another one, which seem to be a separate deletant.......*exasperated sigh*
Why are people so boring when naming plasmids? Can't they call it something snappy? Can't we just call them ABCD-Luc Alex, ~Bob, ~Clyde and ~Dave? Like the TV channel. Or Angie, Barbara, Connie and Debbie. The name can be the person who made it, or the person who sent it. Or the place. How about pSB for Santa Barbara. Or pTex for Texas. Though that makes Utah a bit problematic. I know, just don't ask for a plasmid from someone working in Utah.

Well, then there are the things I mentioned to Santa yesterday.
Today, at 4pm, I felt pissed off because I had to keep an eye on the sole bug shaker so that the two empty clamps would be free for me to put a couple of big flasks (for a maxi prep) in.

I dunno, maybe I'll just drown my irritation in some beer.

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.

History of a plasmid

I once asked someone in the US for some plasmids. He dutifully sent me the (correct) plasmids, with full maps, plus the photo of the cut plasmids run out on an agarose gel.


My boss and I were amused and a little saddened when we read the accompanying email, which detailed how all these plasmids (which were published a few years ago when the person was in another lab) perished with Hurricane Katrina when he was working in New Orleans. And that in his new lab (not in Louisiana) he had to make everything from scratch. Including the inserts...

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!

Can we have one too?

I was reading this article about how the Red Sox treat their top prospects. Note especially about two-thirds down, they actually advise young athletes on how to treat clubhouse attendants and hotel workers. And that left me wondering if we could have something similar for new Ph.D. students.
You know, show them things like

(1) treat cleaners, technicians and store personnel with respect,
(2) do your rota without complaining. You can complain when you are a postdoc, not a student,
(3) how to mentally prepare for the upcoming year (concentrate, keep your head down, work hard),
(4) how to deal with criticism (a.k.a. Boston baseball equivalent of the media).

If only...

Experience counts

Our PhD student, Mac, had his viva recently. In England, most Universities have a viva voce examination as a doctorate exam, whereby the student, an internal (i.e. from the institution) and external (i.e. not from the institution) get cosy together in a little room, and go over the thesis in minute detail.
Normally, it is a simple affair. The student is obviously nervous. The external is obviously enjoying it. The internal is (normally) there to curb the external's enthusiasm for grilling the student (okay, there may be exceptions...).

Anyway, Mac had a new lecturer - let's call him Snaps - for his internal examiner, someone who I am quite certain that this was his first occasion as being an examiner of any kind for a PhD.
So the viva went well, the external examiner was mostly happy with Mac's work, bar minor alterations. As in, typos, or adding a couple of sentences in. In our lingo, major alterations means you have to do more experimental work, and you have to resubmit. (And pay to resubmit). It's a big thing, and time consuming. This obviously shouldn't have applied to Mac. All there was left to do was for the internal to fill in the form, and hand it back to the School Office who will process it.

However, Snaps didn't read through his "Internal Examiner's Handbook", because apparently he filled in the form wrong. As in, instead of ticking on "minor corrections", he ticked on "major corrections", thinking that typos and doing one page worth of corrections were the kind of corrections that involved re-doing experiments, re-writing the thesis, and re-submitting the whole damn thing (and taking a few months, not a few hours).
And thank God for Mac there was someone out there, because one of his supervisors (he had two, by the way) went storming into Snaps' office to check what he meant. She was surprised as hell at the choice of tickboxes he ticked, and went in to clarify what he meant. Sure enough, he realised his mistake before the form had been forwarded to the School Office.

I went for a drink with Mac to celebrate his thesis - there was really no doubt in anyone's mind that he shouldn't have passed anyway - but this only came to light recently, when I was walking back from the canteen with my lunch in my hand, only to see his female supervisor. I chatted to her a bit, and it was quite funny... I think she wanted to tell someone about the whole brouhaha!

Well, Snaps apparently went back and apologized to Mac about the whole thing (and putting Mac through some unrequired stress!). But me thinks he isn't going to go for a round of golf with Mac anytime soon...

People stress

My project is interesting, things are moving slowly but steadily. Techniques are working. No equipment failures. Cells behaving. Then why is worklife so stressful, and why am I so happy that I don't have to come to work?

It wasn't like this the last time. Last time I finished a contract, I actually wanted to work a bit more in the lab. I wanted to help my previous supervisor finish off the paper, I was gearing to go on my new project with my new boss.
Now, I'm so glad I don't have to deal with the people in my lab anymore. Specifically some postdocs.

Mr.Strauss, whom I share an office with, and whose problematic personality has been detailed in this blog far too often.
Cheshire Cat, whose self-importance knows no bounds. No, you can't claim that you set up a "frog research lab", when you and your senior fellow are the only ones working in your particular area using that model (and in a small corner of our main lab too). And I doubt you had that large a part to play in it. Postdocs overrating her work and importance? Hell, yeah.
Gobble, whose moody demeanor is a pain to deal with. No, you don't own the equipment you use, so don't sulk and get upset when you find that other people has started running their experiment - especially when you don't bother to turn up until lunch.

And let's not even start talking about the PI, Gobshite, who walks around looking like he hasn't showered in three years, smells like cats piss, and has such a big chip on his shoulder he has to talk about his hard life in the local press.


I really am glad I don't have to see these people for a while. I won't miss them.

Ho hum

Don't you just hate it, when you are doing the last experiment before a poster/paper/thesis/end of contract, that the results don't turn up as you expect? And even more so when you find that the bloody repeat experiment you did, does something different to the previous one?

Me thinks that I need to go back to the lab part-time on a hobby basis...

Evil Postdocs reply

Replying to the comment to the post below, before I go to bed...

We had a postdoc, who, in two years (or was it 18 months?) of working with BigBoss, managed to produce 2 plasmids. Two. Even the BigBoss was glad to get rid of him. BTW, he got rid of him, because the postdoc actually found a lectureship. No comments there, but maybe deskwork would suit him better. At the rate he was producing plasmids, definitely.

We also have a permanent postdoc (he has some research officer position with the Workplace, as his boss - a powerful Prof - likes him) who really does no work. 9 to 5er. And he used to be in charge of radioactivity before he moved labs. The radiation people (i.e. the people who deal with the legal side and keeps an eye on everyone using radioisotopes. I call them the radiation people), who came to check his book-keeping, was appalled at his obvious "lack" of book-keeping.

Sometimes you have to wonder what these people do, or manage.
And I always live with the fear that I may become one of them. I hope someone (i.e. like my boss) tells me that. But somehow I doubt it. I mean, why else do these people keep their jobs?

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?

I am following with interest the "discussion" between FYS and DrugMonkey (DM), regarding the role of the postdocs and roles of PIs. Personally I like the comment by Anon.

It is true that a lot of people (I won't go as far to say "everyone") overrates their own work. I wonder how many of them actually think, "well, this is my job, and I am doing it". I mean, you get paid to do your job, right? Why don't you do your job then? Or what, just because it's called a fellowship, it's different? It gives you the right not to act as a responsible employee?


I am reading this comments to DM's post, and thought about one particular Ph.D. student in my previous lab. She was writing her thesis, and her English, was, abysmal. The supervisor even said that another foreign student in the lab writes better English than her. Now, this Ph.D. student in question was British - yep, she was born and bred, and educated here. We all were saying that foreign students who come in to the country probably do better, because English wasn't their native tongue and hence they are more careful (amongst other reasons).
Now, for me, that basically shows that students nowadays can't write. Writing a thesis or a paper is not just putting ideas down. It is making it into a coherent prose. It's surprising, but a lot of people can't do that. I don't know whether it is the educational system - is it changing now, with less emphasis on writing or something?
Obviously the only way to rectify it is to practice. And it helps to have good guidance too.
The question is, is the commentator PI such as the SciPI doing their job? I just wonder: if he tells his postdocs/students that they are not doing a good job?

I can understand PIs not wanting to have a conflict within their lab/group. But as a PI, it's his job to point out when things are not done. If a student comes with a terrible draft, tell the student to re-do it. It might take time, yes, but it is for the student's benefit.
It is hard to advise people who think they are brainy, who are too proud, and who think that they know everything - i.e. scientists. I know a few students and postdocs who, literally, sulk, when they are told otherwise by a PI. It must be hard for a PI to deal with people like that.

But hey, if you (PI) take this "training" seriously, it is your job to train them. I know PIs who shy away from that, giving pathetic excuses like:
"I was too busy to read your draft" (ah, so common!)
"This isn't good enough, re-write it" (without so much giving a reason what was wrong)
....the two most unhelpful comments for a subordinate.

Reading the post in DM, I just wonder how much the PIs actually communicate with their students/postdocs. For example, when asking to have figures redrawn, or paragraphs removed, do they actually explain why?
On a parallel note, I am thinking about airline delays. It is much easier and less stressful if you know why the plane is delayed - whether it be weather or a mechanical fault. The worst situation is when you don't know why it is happening to you.
So extrapolating from that, why not tell the student/postdoc, instead of
"we don't need this figure", say
"(why not) remove this figure so it makes the story straight forward"

And now I can sense the PIs over at DM saying how they try to communicate but the subordinate won't listen. Um, it's your job to make them listen? If they are stubborn, you have to try and coax them into thinking from your point of view. If they are stupid, repeat your point.
Why tell postdocs/students "Try to understand that..." when you are not actually explaining to them (i.e. training them)? Do they think students and postdocs are mind readers? I mean, think about how many times your partner can read your mind. If that's the case with someone who cares about you and vice versa, what do you think about people who just...work with you???


I wonder if I am a loser postdocs from DrugMonkey's perspective. I mean, I'm not particularly interested in becoming a great postdoc and a PI. I am just not interested. I also think I'm not really cut-out; I ain't no political player.
I'm interested in what I do, and I like what I do. I enjoy my job. I have a professional attitude for my job, I want to and I do my job well.
I understand (or at least try to) about the various pros and cons, ins and outs, of being in academia and the pressures and the stresses. About how things work.
But I am not interested in becoming a PI. It doesn't appeal to me.
Then does that make me a glorified technician? A glorified engineer?

And hey, you're the PI. You get paid more, so you have more responsibilities. You get a permanent (or semi-permanent) job, which includes teaching. It is inevitable that some vile is going to be headed towards you PIs from postdocs. Just look at politicians and ordinary people.



To round off this post, I guess this boss/subordinate problem is a common problem in jobs everywhere, anywhere. It probably is just that dealing with scientists are a bit more tricky. Thinking about it, I think it boils down to trust and respect.
More on this later...

Transparancy

I noticed today that someone has changed our source of film developer and fixer. Now, instead of a simple

"dilute conc. developer 1 in 5 in water"

it's

"add 210ml solution A to 710ml water. Add 35 ml solution B to the mix, and mix well. Then add 40 ml of solution C, mix well. Finally add 5 ml of solution D and spit in it, followed by saying 'abracadabra' three times"

Can making fixer and developer soluitons be more tedious, time consuming, and irritating (when you have a cassette with a membrane with ECL reagent already on it, the signal fading as you mull over which bottle is solution A in the dim red light of the dark room)?
I tell you, I can kill the person who bought this crappy, complicated concoction of what should be a simple procedure. You know, when you develop a film at the end of the day, the last thing you want is a two page protocol which requires using pipettes. I really like the "dump 200 ml of conc into 800 ml water, voila!" method.

Anyway, I got pissed off because I know that my favourite dev & fix solution (i.e. our usual one) was ordered ages ago. It probably is in back order or something. But if so, can't someone just post up a note saying "it's on back order, but for the time being you have to use this"? Is it too much to ask? People don't get half as irritated if they know the reason why something is not there, like a plane at an airport (no one wants to fly if there is engine trouble, surely they'd rather wait for another plane).
And, as a matter of fact, can they not take responsibility and sort the damn thing out? Not just sit there and twiddle their thumbs and wait until the thing gets delivered. I would ring the distributor, find out what is wrong. Ring the company (Kodak, actually). Find out what is wrong. Threaten to cancel the order and order it from another company. Or even order a smaller batch instead of a 5 litre monstrosity. Something can be done. If I were in their shoes, I would do that. I would chase the company, get it sorted. And not let other people down, just try and get it sorted.

You know, if I was in charge, I would send an email around to everyone detailing why there is a more complicated procedure in place. I think transparancy helps. It's just that in my lab, there are too many people, and too many protocols (because there are no less than 5 groups led by 5 different PIs in the lab). It makes absolutely no sense that there isn't a lab manager to instill one rule and one law in the lab. If I was one...heh heh heh, you can call me the mean Sheriff Lou.

Grrr. I'm tired. And there's still 3 more days until the weekend...