Scientific stardom

Over at FSP, there was a post about rockstars and scientists. And it reminded me about the Nobel Laureate I met.

A group of us from work went out to a bar after work, just for a farewell drink with one of our Ph.D. students. He's not leaving leaving, because he is still working in the same institute, but in a different lab.
Anyway, one young PI who joined us recognized a Nobel Laureate ordering food at the bar. He claimed that that scientist type guy standing at the bar was none other than John Sulston, recipient of the Physiology or Medicine prize in 2002.
Of course we didn't believe him, but the buzz was there. Is it him? Should we ask him? Should we dare to go up and ask him if he is THE John Sulston? (As you can guess, we don't know our Nobel Laureates that well...)

After much trepidation (and typing feverishly into our mobiles to find his photo on the internet) on our part, the Farmer went up to him to ask. And it was him! He turned around, looked at us, and waved!! We got him to come have a chat, and had a photo opportunity, which is where this photo comes from.
He was very nice, BTW, very friendly and down-to-earth (considering he was conversing with a group of young-ish, gaping scientists who were so awe struck that they couldn't form a sentence). The kind of person you would enjoy talking to in a pub after a conference session, for example.

We were wondering then if he ever had this - you know, some random person coming up to ask "Are you THE Nobel Laureate???!!!" in a bar or a pub. I guess that if you are a rock star, that would be a common occurance, but a scientist? I mean, that must make your day. Unless you are a Nobel Laureate, and you want to keep a low profile when ordering some food in a bar. He had a bowl of fat chips with whatever he was eating, by the way.

BTW, if there is one Nobel Laureate I would recognize, it would probably be Sir Paul Nurse. Only because I have actually seen him give a talk and all, so have a good idea of his physical appearance.

More on CNS

DrugMonkey's post about my Sunday effort has garnered some interesting comments. Go have a look. Now we have the answer to why Cell plummeted to mere mortal levels. Amazing what an editor can do, huh? And it is true that no matter what the IF fluctuations are, you still want a paper in CNS.

However, I was a little surprised at the effect the interweb had on journals. Thinking about it, I guess it was around that volatile time at the turn of the century (heh), when Nature was spawning various sister journals, and people started putting in 20 pdf pages worth of supplementary data and figures and tables. (BTW, I have to read a Nature paper which is about 3 pages long, with 20 pages of supplementary data, for a journal club. No, I didn't print out all of the supplementary data. Killing trees and all...)

Although, as the IF is calculated by citations in indexed journals (see Wiki entry and the Thomson Scientific entry), unless there was a drastic change in editorial policy (e.g. Cell), the impact factor should more or less stay the same.
I haven't read the dirty on the Thomson Scientific website about the nitty gritty of calculating the IF, but I am assuming that for a normal bog-standard journal, the IF relies upon its papers being referenced by other papers published in "indexed" journals (i.e. the journals that Thomson collects IF data for).
If so, then a higher web availability of a journal should increase the IF of the journal. Provided everything (like the quality of published article) is the same, the IF should go up if the journal is easily available, since there is a higher chance of people citing the paper in that journal.

The slight decline seen in the last two years for Nature and Science may reflect the increase in number of "quality" journals - i.e. published by npg and Cell Press (I know, I know, I go for those brand names). I am thinking that there may be an increase in quality papers published in other, more specialized, but high IF journals (like the npg or Cell Press ones). This will lead to citations for such quality papers to be attributed to non-CNS journals, hence the IF of CNS going down (slightly).

Oh, but I forgot that IF only takes into account the last three years. There goes that theory then. But that does make the decrease in Cell's IF even more fascinating - as in Lewin really did have power as well as interest to publish really interesting papers.


Anyway, whatever. Someone else can go think about this now. I should be using my brain power for something else. Anyone interested in a thesis/review topic?


I might collate IF data on Nature Medicine and other sister journals to see how they have developed since inception, as well as something like the BBRC (since I never really looked at theirs). We'll see.

CNS...

I really should be spending time doing something else.

But I was curious, and the itch had to be scratched. So I spent the best part of a Sunday morning gathering impact factors from various web sources, and did an Excel spreadsheet of the impact factors of Cell, Nature and Science from 1992 to 2006 (most current one).

I need to get a life.

Anyway, this was prompted by my own knowledge that during my Ph.D. years, Cell had a stellar IF. So much so that I remember writing on someone's birthday card that "you'll get a publication in Cell before you reach the same age in number as the IF" or something like that. Well, you'd better be quick about it now.

I remember looking at the Cell IF a few years ago, wondering what had happened to the journal for the IF to tumble down. A decrease in IF of 10 within 5 years is pretty dramatic. When I asked some people about it, they thought that maybe it had to do with the editorial policy at that time. I dunno, I recall that I stopped actually reading the TOC of Cell, because they went through a phase of loving yeast. Yeast is great as a model organism, but it is yeast.

Another thing of slight interest might be the "hike" in the IF of Science, in 2002. Musta had a few great papers published in 2001 then.

Nature is slowly going down, but that may be because of all the other sister journals the npg is so fond of - I don't know whether people nowadays actually prefer to publish in the sister journals like Nature Medicine rather than Nature it self. What I mean is, do people specifically avoid Nature? Although Nat. Med. is not a good example, as it's own IF is as high (or even higher) than that of Nature. Of course you'd want it published in Nat. Med. then.

Here is something I picked up during my Google searches, an editorial about IF from the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine. It is not a critique of the IF system, just a note on how the IF of the journal had changed.

Publications

I was reading stuff over at DrugMonkey, and thinking about this desire to get a C/N/S paper (I did snigger at that, the sad, sad state of my sense of humour being what it is - since I'm not working in brains, I am going to use CNS instead of using all the slash).

Coming from a cellular/molecular biology 1st postdoc, I agreed about getting a good quality paper in CNS. But as my 2nd postdoc is in a more medically related field, my thoughts have changed a bit over the last few years. Hmmm, maybe it's maturity. Or giving up on the career highway.

I've had a chat about this with several other people, all from differing fields. We all agree that it is hard to get a publication in the CNS. But the fact that they have a wide readership makes it difficult to publish in it. In my particular field, I do see very occasional papers in the CNS, but it is very very rare now. I think my field had its share of "defining" papers a decade or more ago, and it is rare now to see such papers in CNS journals. Also, my field is relatively well-developed (i.e. has been around a while).

People in my field, I think, tend to go for specialist journals, and I think that in part, it is due to the nature of my field - it straddles between medicine and molecular biology, with a strong slant towards medicine.
I also think (maybe wrongly) that it can be difficult to "justify" the science to non-specialist audiences - I feel like you really need to show a really interesting phenomenon, which has a real impact on the future of humankind, to get a CNS publication (ok, N and S at least).

Being more involved in the clinical possibilities also made me question about this desire to publish in a well publicised, high impact factor (IF) journal. There are other, highly regarded, high-ish IF journals out there. It's just that in our little field, that high-ish IF tends to top at around 8 or something, and rapidly decline to the 4's, 3's and 2's.
Having said all that, I am not applying for PI positions, so I am not under a lot of pressure in that way.

The other thing is, me being who I am, love gossip. So for example, I would love to know that Dr.X's Nature publication only came about because he is chummy with the editor. Or that Dr.Y's Cell publication only came about because he hassled the editor to death. Or that Dr.Z's publication only came about because she is the editor's ex-postdoc, etc. etc.
It doesn't help me in anyway for me to get my CNS paper, but I kinda like to hear things like that. It's funny.

On an aside, I remember presenting a paper for journal club, which I picked because of the title and abstract. Ok, and I admit that the well known PI's name as last author helped too. I hadn't really read it, and when I studied it carefully, I was absolutely appalled at the quality of work (not to mention English) - I was ashamed to have chosen it. And this was published in a "high IF journal" in our field.
After going through the paper, one of the PIs at the journal club pointed out that the last author had been the editor-in-chief of that publication (but wasn't at the time the paper was published). So it makes me think, you know, small-ish field, everyone knows everyone....maybe someone owed someone a favour? And you don't want to get in the bad books of the bigwigs.

That's humanity for you.


BTW, I just realised that I am assuming that CNS stands for Cell, Nature and Science, and not the related journals within Cell Press or NPG. Science doesn't have sister journals does it? And I was kinda surprised that Cell Press now does the Trends series. How things change...

realt-time PCR

Recently, I was invited back to my old lab to give a presentation about a particular method used to analyse qPCR (real-time PCR) data - specifically, the 2-DDCt method (read delta for D). It's apparently also known as the comparative Ct method.
I didn't mind doing it, but it was like 4 years ago when I last touched a qPCR machine, let alone do a complete analysis of results. So whilst I was okay with the whole idea (thinking that I should really get paid for such a service), I was curious as to why.

The whole presentation was to do with the theoretical aspects of the 2DDCt method, as developed by Livak and Schmittgen in their 2001 paper - so I decided, sadistically, to go through the derivation of the formula, as well as go through one example in detail, including calculating the errors.
I wasn't quite sure who was going to be there, and what kind of background they had - I thought I shouldn't really go into the details of tehcniques or mechanism of qPCR, but just stick to the actual analysis, and iron it out. Rather like a detailed journal club, if only in describing the details of the paper in biologist's terms.

Anyway, I enjoyed doing it. I have to admit, I REALLY enjoyed going through the actual derivation of the formula used (I went back to the original paper for that). I enjoyed seeing the eyes of some of the members of the audience, almost glaze over, as I put up slide after slide of mathematical equations. Biologists, ay? I am forever greatful for my understanding of mathematics.

Although I did mention being sadistic, there is a reason why I thought it better to go through the derivation, even if that meant biologists dying from a mathematical equation induced coma. There are two assumptions made in the derivation that leads to the final formula. And to drive home the point of the importance of these assumptions, it was necessary to derive the formula, so I could point out exactly WHY you must adhere to them.
We all know that people take shortcuts. Hell, I do too. But as in most cases, you have to know what you can cut out, and what you can't. And these assumptions are certainly NOT something you can wiggle your way around. And yes, I have seen people try to.

Suffice to say that my presentation was a hit. And it transpired that the reason why I was asked to do a presentation, was because a lot of people in the Faculty were using the standard curve method - and people in my former lab still used the comparative Ct method, probably because I used it.
Apparently the postdoc in my former lab had overheard a conversation, whereby the technician running the qPCR machine facility was telling another researcher about why he preferred the standard curve method - to which the researcher answered that he preferred to use the comparative Ct method, because he understood the limitations.
Now, my former lab apparently has been having some problems with qPCR results. I don't know why and where to reasons or blames lie, but it seems they were slightly confused (as well as presented with peer pressure) as to why they were using the comparative Ct method when everyone else was doing it the standard curve way. Peer pressure is an evil thing.

Of course, that does leave the question - couldn't someone in their lab do a search to look for a paper that had done a comparative study between the analysis methods??

Global village

Ok, so here I am, looking at "Instructions to authors" in yet another journal. Today, I looked at the Biochem. J.. Notice anything funny?

They have a Chinese version (link to pdf) of author's instructions.

Which strikes me as very odd.
The journal is published in English, by a British society. I can appreciate that it might (and probably has) a large Chinese readership. Is this a common thing for journals to do? I haven't seen it happen in any other English journal that I might send my meagre offering to the scientific universse.

But what, exactly, is the point in having the instructions in Chinese if the manuscript has to be in English? Since when did that kind of concessions occur?
Ok, granted, Angew. Chemie was solely published in German - but it still gave way to the lingua franca of science, English. I somehow can't see Chinese becoming a force in scientific publishing, especially (despite?) a journal of that standard. And I can't see a regression occuring back to another language from English.

So...writing a paper in English may be easy, since you follow a set pattern - it's not like writing a literary piece. And I can understand that it is important that the instructions are clearly set out and understandable, and that they are followed to a T. But why bother when the actual manuscript has to be in English? "Instructions to authors" isn't that hard to follow.

I wonder if they had problems with more than a few manuscripts, which had good work, but was sent back because it didn't follow the instructions? But why not outright reject it then? Was the quality of work so good, that they still wanted the manuscript even if the instructions were not followed?

This isn't some leaflet or something for the council, or the government, or whatever - they produce leaflets in something like 20 different languages. That doesn't bother me as much as the fact that as scientists, shouldn't the authors be a bit more...educated? Okay, it's hard to write in English if you are a foreigner. But everyone goes through that.

Oh I'm rambling...

Seminar manners

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

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

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

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

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?

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.

I'm getting old

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

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


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

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


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

Serial or parallel?

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

What's so hard?

Reading the most recent entry in Pipeline, and combining with my thoughts from a career seminar, I was wondering - why do young people in academia show an allergic reaction to capitalism?

Okay, so I guess I am a little older and a little wiser than most PhD students. Money helps, and without it, you can't do much.
Students nowadays go through a PhD system that is a joke, three years of lab work and an instamatic PhD with no thought process required. Lecturers who are interested in coaxing as much money as possible from grant funders, usually who focus on a particular disease - but for projects which are hardly going to cure any disease. Universities pressurizing PIs to ask for more money for overhead costs, which the grant funder don't (and shouldn't) fund.

All this and you are still bullshitting me about how academia is "pure"?
That working in industry constraints your "freedom"?

See, that's funny. Surely if you have a clear aim, short-term and long-term, it makes for a more efficient worker. And if you are rewarded for achieving your objectives; if you are rewarded well, is there anything wrong with it?
It's not like you don't think creatively and innovatively if you work in a company - it might allow for more flexibility and freedom within certain constraints (time or money or both). What else could be easier than to work for someone whose goal is crystal clear (i.e. make money for the shareholders)?

And also, why criticize pharmaceuticals when they spend a lot of money on advertising? They are in it for the money. Why would they be doing what they are doing if they don't get anything out of it?

Questions, questions...

Paper? What is paper?

Reading this over at the Pipeline reminds me of my PhD days. They weren't that long ago though.

I used to be able to walk down the aisles of the library, actually picking out 100-year old volumes of the Journal of the Chemical Society Transactions. There were old German Angewandte Chemie volumes lying around (which, ur, I couldn't read, because I never took the "German for chemistry" class in my 1st year. I wish I did...). Surprisingly, they didn't have it in storage, which thinking about it now, is amazing. Yes, the spines were a bit brittle, and there was a fine layer of dard dust (scarily similar to soot, I guess) on the top of the book.
I used to read the Chemical Abstracts, you know, those paper "five-yearly" volumes. And have to cross reference them to another book, and would be sitting at the table with like 10 volumes out. I did cough from the amount of dark dust on it too.
I never did any searches on Beilstein, because I wasn't an organic chemist. But it looked cool.

Regarding that re-invention of a 102-year old reaction...I agree with Christl really. It is poor form not to do a thorough literature search, especially if you are in an older subject such as any form of chemistry. You should suspect that someone might have done it before. Hell, in my PhD I was making a compound that was described in the 60's and 70's. And the synthesis actually gave me decent yield. Thinking about it, I think that was the only synthetic method to give the compound (without extra stuff like pressure and solvents).
Actually, I'm assuming that 100-year old articles are catalogued electronically now. When I was a student, it wasn't (or it was and it was expensive) so you had to do the (literally) dirty work.

In a more recently developed field such as molecular biology, I guess it is easier to do a literature search, plainly because the field only really developed in the last 30 years. Hence, there isn't as much papers and articles to get through, and they are more bound to be catalogued better.
In fact, if anything, in my field of cell/molecular biology, people aren't really in the habit of doing searches. Out of habit, I still go and fish out a paper from the 80's, just to get my hands on the original paper that described some obscure technique. I'm a sucker for these things, and nowadays it is SO easy to get a paper that old. Often, you don't even have to have a trip to the library (and beat off all the stupid undergrads out of your way). On a side, papers from the 80's are so much more of a joy to read. So much more simple grammatically, and you can feel real appreciation for what they had to do in the 80's which you can do on a tip of your finger nowadays (i.e. push a button).
And this also goes back to all these young whippersnapper(molecular biologist)s pretending to be really great by finding out things that are never done. Grrrr.

The unbearable lightness of the RAE

I went to my old (but soon to be new) workplace's X'mas do, and got talking to a new-ish lecturer in my lab (I'll just refer to the old-but-new-but-workplace as my lab. What the hell.).

She joined out lab about... a year-and-a-half ago. I think. I can't remember. And ever since she joined, her tenure has been nothing but problems. She is unhappy (but pragmatic enough to keep on going) with her position. Well, she would be, since she moved from a highly-respected-European Institute in the continent, which I thought weird - I mean, who would want to move to Britain, ay.

Apparently, things were looking a bit dodgy from the start. When she came for an interview, they showed her around this fab new building - which they surely knew that she won't be housed in. First of all, that building belongs to a different School from her Department, and her Department does not have any right to be in that building (unless they pay, and no one wants to pay). Secondly, that building was full (I know that now they have some empty spaces...).

Then, when she started, there were more peculiar things. She basically moved to this Uni because her previous institution didn't have anyone working in her particular area of Development (and I mean, development as in organism). She came here because there was someone else in the department working in that particular area of development. Lets call him Richie Rich (shouldn't really, he's a prof...must show respect...).
Now, when someone new starts, who doesn't know anything about the way British Universities are run, you sort of think they would take you under their wing to show them around. Not this particular person. Apparently, her suggestion of having joint lab meetings were turned down (which doesn't make sense, when there's only two groups working in the area). He asked her to organize seminars, which he cancelled after going to two of them.

There were things I heard about RR, which I didn't tell her (because it won't really add to anything more).
What I know, is that his wife (I think), who is also a lecturer working in a similar field (never got that independence from him, and she is highly reliant on him for ideas - I guess the more cynical would say that it is his ploy of getting double the grant money!), used to be his technician. They got romantically involved, then she was guided through her PhD, and look at her now - a cushy position in the same department. A department he has a LOT of power in.
He also has a habit of picking a favourite female worker in his lab, and making them his girlfriends. Not that he keeps it secret. I have bumped into him at the cafeteria, always with his girls, and the same one next to him all the time. Anyway, I don't have much respect for how he is (can't say much about his scientific work, but his wife's work is not particularly interesting or good).


Anyway, getting back to the new lecturer, she suspected that the reason why she was given tenure in this Uni was due to the RAE (Research Assessment Exercise), which I am inclined to agree.
For those working outside Britain, RAE is a study done by the government to see how effective each Higher Education (HE) institution are in research. It is a life and death matter for HE institutions, as it determines government funding (and indirectly affects student choices of HE institutions).
As you can imagine, places like the big London University Colleges (Imperial, King's, UCL etc), Oxford and Cambridge gets good press. And that is also why the high powered (read, rich) institutions are keen on poaching each other's PIs. They play the RAE game.

You see, what the University such as this one does, is that about 3 years before the RAE deadline they start recruiting. They try and recruit people with good publication records, which means postdocs with famous PIs (which was the case with my previous boss a few years ago), or someone with a good publication record from another institution (the case with the new lecturer).
They are playing this game, as publication records (especially first and last authorship of a good paper) are carried over from your previous institution to where you are now. I admit that I am not sure how the RAE really works, but as far as I know, and from what I hear, that seems to be the case.

So what happens? In our institutions, what happens is that you have a glut of PI recruits, every 5 years or so. The last one happened around 2-3 years ago (that's around the period when lecturers such as the WankerBoy and GorrillaGrrrl were given the position, and just before the new lecturer came to us). The one before, when my preivous boss was employed, must have occured around 8 years ago.
Actually, GorrillaGrrrl only came to our institution because her partner was given a chair (i.e. prof-ship) here. From the work that I have seen her do, she is not a particularly good fit in our group, or in our School for that matter - but I guess they had to give her a lecturership in some department to entice the partner to move.

When these new PIs arrive, what they find, is nothing. Often with no or little lab space, no money, hence no equipment or people. They are left alone to write grants and get money and get the funding.
From the Institution's point of view, what is the point in giving these people money? You see, all the Institution is interested is, is their publication record. If the new PI is not happy with the situation, and decides to leave in 4 years, well, then that's their problem. The Institution has achieved what they wanted - a decent RAE score from the person.

Excuse me?

Anyone else been following James Watson's fall from grace?

As a scientist, I find it sad.

Reading the Independent article...Personally, I disagree with Blakemore and Dawkins (although I have a feeling they were quoted slightly out of context to suit the news writers better) in a sense that a public museum (like the Science Musem) should be free to ban such people like Watson. His role as a speaker surely was not about race, or Africa's problems, or the intelligence of black people. If he is courting controversy in such a way, and the Museum thought it inappropriate, why not ban him? Give him another place to voice his opinion.

Also...Is it too much to ask that an eminent scientist be a role model to others? You know, people that kids aspire to. I just feel like there is this scientist vs. public thing. If scientists are moaning about how little Joe Public knows about science...and they are actually given the place and opportunity to talk...surely you play within the rules. The rules here being the rule of political correctness, for the lack of a better phrase. How about decency. I don't know what words to use. What would have happened if it was, say, the head of the Royal Opera House who was invited to speak about running an Opera House, who blurted that out in an interview?Now what I was surprised about was CSHL's quick decision.

With respect to Africa, I think that a lot of the problems there were inflicted by colonial rule. It is ludicrous to suggest that the problem of the whole continent is due to the lack of intelligence of the people - surely an insult to countries like Botswana. And solutions must be tailored to the region - you can't just blankly apply what worked in the western countries.

Anyway, all in all, for me this just reinforces that out of the three Noble Laureates, Crick and Wilkins were more respectable. I remember watching a couple of documentaries, and what made a strong impression on me was how Wilkins was lecturing into his 80's (I think) about the social significance of science, as well as how Crick continued to evolve as a scientist, getting into theoretical neurobiology in the later years of his career. Now, those two, are scientists we should be proud about, respect, and learn from.

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.

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.

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...