Undoing

michael-lewis-the-undoing-projectI just finished reading The Undoing Project by Michael Lewis. He’s the guy who wrote Moneyball and The Big Short, riveting books about the arcane subjects of choosing baseball players and the subprime crash of 2008. This latest book is even better. The Undoing Project is one of the best science books I have ever read. It has fascinating science as well as love, obsession, envy, triumph, failure, self-doubt, arrogance, humility and war. It’ll make a fantastic movie and might do more than even The Double Helix to explain to non-scientists how science gets done — and how it is such a human endeavor.

Ultimately the book is about the triumphs (and failings) of two scientists, Danny Kanneman and Amos Taversky, and their studies of human failings. Much wisdom emanates from them. One Taversky line particularly resonated, I guess because my frantic semester finally ended, it’s the Christmas break and sabbatical is beckoning:

The secret to doing good research is always to be a little underemployed. You waste years by not being able to waste hours.

I think there is something to that. My best, most creative thinking happened when I was on sabbatical or research leave, or in the early years at Penn State before fund-raising, teaching and institutional nonsense caught up. The Undoing Project is really about identifying important problems. Hyper-busyness gets in the way. New Year’s resolution: Just say no.

A PSA for PSU folks

larger

 

 

 

 

This a “public service announcement”.

State College happens to have some fun things going on this summer and it seems that sometimes being a full time scientist doesn’t leave a lot of room for extracurriculars. Or, if you do get some free time maybe you don’t keep a pulse on local happenings and might miss out on some summer opportunities. That’s right, I just used FOMO to get you to go out and do something fun. You’re welcome.

Here are a few highlights in the area for those that felt the first chill of fall in the air yesterday and are thinking about making the most of these last few days of nice weather. There is a strong bias toward what interests me (music and local food), so please add your own favorites as comments. Let’s make plans to meet up and enjoy some summer fun before students return!

Thursday nights until September there is Wingfest at Tussey Mountain with music at 5:30pm (and hikes in Rothrock anytime), First Friday at Downtown State College every FridayFriday night concerts 7:30pm on the Lemont Green, Farmer’s markets all over the place most days of the week (including Tuesdays  2-6 at the Boalsburg Military Museum and even through the winter indoors, and Wednesdays in Lemont 3-7pm), Farmfest this weekend in nearby Centre Hall, music on Sundays at Webster’s cafe, Shaver’s creek raptor center is cool and had and nearby hikes, and lots of other fun places to hike, birdwatch, or swim.

I hear work-life balance is important…

Desert Island Books.

For domestic reasons, I have been recently reunited with my book collection. There is a fantastic BBC radio series (70+ years old now) where celebrities talk about the 8 songs/tracks/music pieces they would take to a Desert Island. Music is tough. But much to my surprise, re-studying my ‘library’, my list of eight books is easy. In no particular order:

Failure Is Not An Option. A testament to what humans can achieve freed from Health and Safety, HR and the corporate bullshit of ‘Your safety is our top priority’. Management everywhere need to read this. The best of the Apollo books, by far. As my colleague Marcel Salathe is fond of saying, quoting I think one of the Roosevelts: When safety comes first, America is lost. These guys had higher ambitions, and they walked in the heavens. Americans, read this: it is what you are capable of.

A Bright Shining Lie. I see I first read this a quarter century ago. It is still with me. Searing.

The Donkeys. The folly of man. Even more powerful since Sean and I, and later son Matthew and I, went to the battlefields, this book in hand. The ‘hills’ are slight rises. The mud is awful. The inanity of the carnage unimaginable.

Lindberg. An amazing man, described by an amazing biographer. A biographer who never discovered the extra families his subject raised.

Into the Silence. “They had seen so much of death that life mattered less than the moments of being alive.” A ballsy lesson for us all: exploration of the world, of ourselves, trumps everything.

The Idea Factory. The ambition of these guys. Let’s bounce a telephone signal from California to New York off an earth-orbit satellite the size of a basket ball… if only someone could figure a way to put a satellite in earth orbit (it was the 1940s). Before that – before that – they had the math of cell phones sorted. Humanity has lost so much ambition.

Steve Jobs. I suppose there are people on the planet who have not read this book. For me, it induced calm. It is ok to imagine that computers should be better, easier to use. I look forward to the day. Meantime, important lesson: one should suffer ass-holes, just in case they’re the one.

Lovelock. The dilemma of the Berlin moment. Better to achieve perfection, just once in a life after years of planning? Or to aspire and never make it? Or to never be in the running?

Lots of opinions, very little data (to be posted 5mar14)

(NOTE: the following was written in March 2014, when I lacked the courage to post it 20 weeks pregnant and prior to actually becoming a mom of twins. It is posted here unedited since that point. Look for the “Epilogue” at the end for how things actually turned out).

One of the more frustrating things about being pregnant and a scientist is the lack of reliable data available on the subject. (Well, that plus being extra tired, forgetful, clumsy, and hungry ALL OF THE TIME). Most pregnancy books are useless as far as providing means and standard errors, and instead offer vague and sometimes conflicting advice. When I asked for data at a routine visit, one of my doctors pointed out that randomized control trials with pregnant women are difficult to do. Fair enough. I don’t think I’d volunteer to be a control or in the experimental group for a lot of my questions…

As a scientist, I am able to go on a hunt through the primary literature myself (if I don’t take an omega-3 DHA supplement will my kids be forever stunted? – the literature suggests not), but seriously, who has the time? Plus, it’s not like I have any previous experience being pregnant, and with pregnancy so variable across individuals, there isn’t any good literature on what a “normal” pregnancy entails.

Another academic experienced similar frustrations, and decided to write a book that was published in 2013. Emily Oster answered her questions with summarized data from peer-reviewed articles and nice summaries at the end of each chapter. This was my favorite resource by far (and I felt better reading it because she was even more paranoid than I am about screwing this up).

So, about 20 weeks into this whole pregnancy thing, I’m starting to think about how I’m going to continue to keep up my science career while my husband and I are raising twin newborns. (Actually that was a huge lie just there; I’ve been worried about this since way before I was pregnant, even years before). Again, very little data, and many opinions are out there.

Opinions like Sheryl Sandberg’s are to just “Lean In” and do what you can the whole time you’re pregnant and after, never saying no to additional responsibilities. I read her book over Christmas and felt even more tired after absorbing her Superwoman stance, but I suppose also more motivated. There are lots of opinions on blogs like Tenure She Wrote, and Yes, You Can: Women in Academia. Frankly, all of these books and blogs seem to me like another tax on my uterus. Why should I read this stuff just because I’m career oriented? Men don’t seem to read or write this stuff, and lots of them have families and academic careers. There are endless solutions to this question, which boils down to addressing “how should I live my life”. The main problem with this is the “should” part. Getting rid of the “shoulds” in our lives would make us all happier.

So what’s my plan? Well, I plan to keep doing experiments until it’s too uncomfortable to bend over and aspirate mosquitoes (though I’ve needed help with some of the chemical stuff so I don’t expose my growing babies to technical grade insecticide by accident). I’m planning to continue a little past this with a little help on the aspiration front. I’m sad that now that we finally have the Plasmodium falciparum experiments I’ve waited so long for up and going that my involvement will have to be in collaboration only until after July when the babies are external and it won’t be such a big deal if I need to take some antimalarial drugs if I were exposed (and it would be worse to be infected, turns out NF54 loves to bind to placentas). This last is a personal choice, but I’m not willing to take an exposure risk, no matter how minimal (and it is super minimal since I helped to write the SOPs!). After the babies are external I’ll be a sleepless zombie milk machine, because the data show that breastfeeding does make a difference. This means I’ll  be even more hungry even more of the time (bring me food). For once I’m going to just have to not have a definite plan and see how it works out, but we’ll manage. I think that the moral of this story is that there isn’t one solution that fits all, and that we should figure out a way for men to also do the gestating part of having babies.

Epilogue: In July I delivered two healthy boys, and it was necessary for me to take an unpaid leave of absence to be with my new family and recover. Maternity leave (paid) ends at 6 weeks at Penn State, at which point I was sleeping a maximum of 2.5 hours at a time since I chose to breastfeed (newborns require 10-12 feeds/day about every 2 hours), and was therefore up way too much of the night to be a useful, thoughtful, scientist (and not dangerous in the lab)! At 5 months the sleep is better, the feeding schedule down to 6-7 times per day, and the babies are so much fun. I am so glad to have become a mom, and so thankful to have great bosses that have allowed me the time to spend these last few months with my children as they change so much each day, and still have a science position to come back to. I am looking forward to seeing you all again in January!

LoR

In an intriguing B&B a few weeks back in Philly, I met a lawyer from Indianapolis. He makes his living defending government agencies from the people. Sometimes, he defends Universities against employees. He said in universities it all boils down to personalities and egos. There is little else to argue about.

dear committee membersBy way of justification, he got his phone out and played an NPR review of a new novel Dear Committee Members. I mentioned this to Mark, who was the reason I was in Philly, and he had the decency to check it out en route to Sweden to collect his Nobel Prize. For twenty+ years, I have been reading books Mark recommends (he is more reliable than the NY Times; maybe he knows me better). He said it was funny and, better yet, that it was a short fast read. These days, short and fast is a serious plus (I am engrossed in Anna Karenina). And it turns out Dear Committee Members is really bloody funny. And quite a lot tragic, for the reasons well summarized in the NPR review.

The novel is entirely composed of Letters of Recommendation. Writing LoRs is what Professors do. During the Fall semester it is a huge ever-present, mind-numbing, enthusiasm-killing activity. During the rest of the year, the demands ease back to a mere drizzle of weariness. LoRs are a thankless task. Peoples’ lives can rest on them, but if you do them well, no one notices. Moreover, it is hard not be overwhelmed by the inanity of it all. I find myself writing more and more ‘You can read a CV as well as I’. Sometimes you labor for hours and then the candidate gets rejected a few hours later. And the information value of LoRs is mostly near zero. Of course I am going to support my people. LoRs only get informational if someone is no good (and who would agree to write one for someone like that?), or if you don’t know the person very well and have to really appraise them (tenure letters). Reference letters for mentees? What a waste of everyone’s time. Reference letters for senior people? Even worse. I wrote a letter recently for a University looking to promote one of its most distinguished to its top category of professor. He was a member of the National Academy of Sciences, had hundreds of top class papers, patents coming out the wazzoo, had clearly made major contributions to his field, his mentees were fantastically successful and he was a popular teacher. Yes folks, read the CV yourselves. He’s your guy. You are lucky to have him. You know that. Why bother asking the rest of us to confirm that? Use your own judgement people.

The great thing about Dear Committee Members is that it is clear the LoR could become an art form. I’d never realized that. I could cut loose with rhetorical flourishes, turns of style and narrative that would enliven everyone’s world. If we have to waste our time endlessly extolling the virtues of others, let’s have fun doing it. From the book:

“Obediently complying with your latest summonses for superfluous information, I am thoroughly willing to recommend X for…” p 126.

“Firmly situated between the proverbial rock and its opposing hard place, I am in this letter recommending that your office in its infinite wisdom renew and continue the appointment of… In my wildest nightmares I never imagined I would make such a recommendation…” p. 151.

“Ms X knocked at my office door this morning and with the air of a woman wearing diamonds and furs entered the icy enclosure in which I work, perched at the edge of my red vinyl chair, and urged me to respond to the second email request for a recommendation as she desperately hopes to be hired…”  p.80.

“X recently submitted a proposal to your conference–a proposal she now belatedly understands has to be accompanied by a letter of reference.” p56

“X has requested I support her application for Y. A cursory glance at her transcript, with its tidy, monotonous fishing line of A’s, should suffice to recommend her.”  p.52

Roll on the next request.

What is an organism?

Last week, the life scientific took me to Guarda, Switzerland where I attended a week long writing course focused on topics in evolutionary biology. At night, students and faculty gathered for “arm chair” lectures, casual discussions held in a living room where rotating faculty members delved into deeper discussions of a particular research interest. Sometimes lectures touched the topics of career advice and professional development; at other times stories of personal chutzpah and unconventional methods yielded memorable vignettes of the happy accidents and personalities lying behind scientific discoveries.

On Wednesday, it was Joan Strassmann‘s turn to sit in the armchair, and with a room full of first year students listening attentively, she asked us: well fellow biologists, what is an organism?

At first, I sat in the camp of Potter Stewart, thinking “I’ll know it when I see it,” an answer that is both useless and vague for defining an important unit of evolutionary biology. As I began thinking of more useful possible definitions, it seemed that like many definitions in biology, the task would be nebulous. Not only are definitions tricky things to create, the things we choose to define or not define can be arbitrary. Scientists have hyper-enthusiasm for defining species and populations, but as Joan argued during her arm-chair lecture, a definition for an organism seems to have been neglected. So how should we define an organism?

Joan gave the definition that an organism is the smallest unit of adaptation. If this were mapped onto axes of conflict and cooperation, the organism would fall in the quadrant of highest cooperation and lowest conflict.

An interesting definition, but how does it fare with current presumptions we have about organisms? Would the human microbiome be a part of the same organism as human cells? How would we differentiate between parasites being a part of the human organism and mutualists being a part of the human organism? Measuring the distinction between cooperation and conflict for different associating microbes could be problematic, especially when we can’t always measure costs and benefits of the microbes inside us.

I’ve started thinking about other ways we might be able to define an organism.

(1) An organism could be a unit sharing a genetic identity. But this yields problematic questions: are twins the same organism? Are all asexual clones one organism?

(2) An organism could be defined spatially. Are all cells linked tightly in space a unit of adaptation with a collective identity?

(3) We could define an organism by the second part of Joan’s definition, considering conflict vs. cooperation. Are cancer cells that have high conflict with surrounding tissues a separate organism?

Are there other ways we could or should define an organism?

Post comments if you have ideas. In the meantime, my recent travels have taken me places where I photographed some organism-things, so to prompt organismal thinking, here are pictures:

lichen

A lichen: One organism or two?

red-tail

Red-tail hawk ready to land

A real-life unicorn. Saw a bighorn with a missing horn. Grande Ronde river in the background. Washington State.

A real-life unicorn: a bighorn with a missing horn near the Grande Ronde river, Washington State

Pair of fawns in Hells Canyon. Washington State.

Pair of fawns in Hells Canyon, Washington State

Marmots spotted in the Swiss Alps.

Marmots spotted in the Swiss Alps

Flowers found along a hiking trail: one, a hemaphrodite, one a female. Same species. Made for an interesting science lesson from Dieter Ebert along the trail.

Flowers found along a hiking trail: one is a hermaphrodite, one is a female of the same species. This made for an interesting science lesson from Dieter Ebert along the trail. Guarda, Switzerland.

A pair of oryx walking in early morning, desert sun. La Jolla, New Mexico. (They are invasives, imported from the Serengeti as game)

A pair of oryx walking in early morning desert sun, La Jolla, New Mexico (oryx are invasive in NM, imported from the Serengeti as game)

Peacock crossing. Washington State.

Peacock crossing, Washington State

Nothing kills inspiration like a blank page

It might be better to start out a blog post by deleting a block of random letter combinations from the screen, and then typing.

The blank page is a known killer of writing. This phenomenon even has a name: Blank Page Syndrome. With infinite choice of what to write, writing anything at all becomes impossible, or at least much harder.

How to beat it? Lifehack’s website offers 10 suggestions. My favorites of these include starting in the middle, setting small goals such as writing for a set number of minutes, free-writing just anything to get yourself started without regard to whether it is any good or complete garbage (editing is much easier), and changing your physical location.

Other ideas? Having some curly fries at the ‘skellar with lab mates is also inspiring.

Turning the lights on

Penn State is to be congratulated. No, I’m not talking about football (though I hear they’re doing ok), but for the scientific seminar series put on this year. (The organizers of these also deserve major kudos! They have been busy.) Here’s a taste. Speakers this fall have been amazing. I’ve been lucky enough to talk about science with some very accomplished guests, and that’s my favorite part.

credit to http://crimson-shine.deviantart.com/art/Kaleidoscope-148463172

So many talks could cause seminar fatigue, but the recent talks I’ve seen had exactly the opposite effect. Talking science has been like turning on the lights in a dim room, and discovering that the lights are filtered through a spectacular kaleidoscope – in analogy for the way these talks have colored my thinking about research and lit up new areas.

A meaningful life

Do you want a meaningful life or a happy one?

Though the meaning of life might be a little heavy for the lab blog, I’d still recommend reading this article. One of the central themes of the piece is that although happiness and meaningfulness overlap, they are not the same. As doctors of philosophy or on the way to this distinction, a little philosophical discussion seems appropriate for the blog.

If you aren’t inclined to read the whole thing, search for the word “research” on the page – it’s about us. Choosing to devote a majority of our lives to conducting research, we have chosen a life rich in meaning. The flipside is that because experiments often do not go as planned, our collective foray into the great unknown is inherently stressful, which can decrease happiness. Happiness was described as more of a fleeting and perhaps empty enjoyment – one comparison is the difference between a working life and a life after retirement. Retirees are often happy, but didn’t feel their lives were as meaningful as when working. (As an aside, often retirees will volunteer their time – an activity that enriches the feeling of living a meaningful life).

Just something to think about, and maybe discuss at the pub.

 

 

How to change science

I have just finished reading The Silwood Circle. It’s by an historian of science with a big interest in the philosophy of science. Despite that, I could hardly put it down. I found it riveting partly because I know the players involved, and partly because it is about putting math into ecology (and why that matters even though the models are largely heuristic). But mostly I could not put it down because the book is really about a bunch of men (all men), who set out to insert ecology into the heart of British science and The Establishment – and why they succeeded. I think it has lessons for young folk who want to change science – and older folk who want the next generation to change science.

Silwood Park is a campus of Imperial College London. In the late 1960s, Richard Southwood and slightly later Bob May set out to use Silwood to transform ecology, particularly British ecology. By the time I came on the scene in the mid to late 1980s, they had done it. It was achieved by picking the right people (smart, ambitious, sociable) and opening doors (career opportunities, prizes) once those people performed (which the anointed ones did). But more importantly, it seems, it was done by putting together people who shared a common philosophy about how to do science but whose interests and specific expertise were complementary within the group. They drove each other forward (as big egos do), but as part of an us-against-them mentality, not a dog-eat-dog approach. And my sense is they laughed and argued and socialized as a group, something which really glued them together. Together, they rode the 1970’s environmentalism into the upper reaches of the British establishment. Much of it because they hiked together. It might all hinge on the hiking.

I have heard the criticism that the book fails to acknowledge what happened elsewhere in the world at that same time. That is perhaps a little fair. I also wonder if the Southwood ambition and associated narrative look a bit clearer in retrospect. But to me, what is really missing from the book is an analysis of the impact of charisma. Several of the protagonists are (or were) some of the most charming, forceful, articulate, erudite, stylish, visionary, self-confident, stimulating people I have ever met in science. Add to that potent mix their ability to unite previously disparate subjects like pesticides, parasitoids, parasites, predators, pathogens, public health, plants and a whole lot of other p-words like parties and pubs, and well, ka-Pow.

Some thoughts about blood

This image was lifted from the Radiolab page without permission. For other cool art by Jonathon Rosen check out http://jrosen.org/index.html

I’ve been thinking about blood lately. I’m not the only one interested in the stuff. There was a great Radiolab podcast about blood not too long ago that covers the human obsession with blood. Recently I’ve been a little obsessed with the question of why blood is so bubbly. Are our veins filled with soap? (Don’t worry, I’m joking).

I’ve worked with donated human blood to make aliquots for feeding to bedbugs, mosquitoes, and for the malaria culture. In doing so, I’ve noticed blood forms pretty stable bubbles very easily in at least two instances. The first is when it is mixed with air, such as in a pipette when trying to get the last bit of blood from the bottom of a vial, and the second is when mixed with water, observed when washing up. Why?

My first thought is that maybe it is because of the anticoagulant (CPDA-1) used in the blood bag for collection, but I couldn’t pick out any ingredients in that were a red flag for a bubbly reaction with air or water. Blood is really viscous, which might explain bubbles forming readily in a pipette, but not in water.

Sigma-Aldrich’s website on properties of blood was helpful and maybe a step forward to solving the mystery of the bubbles. Blood contains 0.9% inorganic salts, including sodium, potassium, and carbonate. I’m no biochemist but sodium carbonate and potassium carbonate can both be used to make soaps so maybe my joke that we have soap in our blood isn’t so far off the mark? I’d love to know.

Long stories and long spoons

I am told that everyone in life is a storyteller. Regardless of skill set or career path, we share a commonality: a social compulsion to have a story. Our histories and future directions motivate us to progress, justify our actions and remind us of why we continue on the paths we are on.

The way people phrase this notion varies with perspective. I bought my first car a week before moving to State College and car shopping has enlightened me on the brutal honesty of what the car salesperson told me: we are all sales(wo)men.  Naive and ignorant of how the car business operates, I will first tell you what it is like to buy a car without an idea of what a car costs. It begins with looking at cars with price tags, wondering whether a car will be in a grad student’s price range. “Give me a number,” the car dealer will say. And if you are willing to ask stupid questions, you will ask (as I have done): why not tell me what the car actually costs and explain to me what is a fair and reasonable price and then I will agree with you and pay whatever exorbitant sum that may be. When I asked this, the car sales lady told me that that is not how the system works. She laughed when I looked surprised that the inexperienced, virgin-carbuyer would be naming a price for an item of which she has no idea of the value. She told me life is like this: we are all salespeople. We are all selling something. When I told her I was a scientist, she told me that car dealing is like that too. One person sells cars, another person sells their ideas. Whether we are selling our research, or our science, to an audience/a publication/the public, or selling cars to a future driver, we are still required to play the same game. She may say we are salespeople, but I say we are storytellers; perhaps they are same thing but with a different spin.

I am new to the lab (and excited to be here!) and I am coming to a place with stories embedded in the people already here and stories that will develop during my time. Finding my self in new places and new life stages I like to mull over a story that I think applies to most situations in life: the allegory of the long spoons. Maybe I am trying to “sell” you a perspective with this story, but I’d prefer to say I am storytelling.

The allegory goes something like this (in my mutated version):

A man is walking. As he continues walking, he gets farther and farther from home and loses track of where he is going. Eventually the man walks straight into hell. Arriving in hell he is surprised at what he sees. There is a long banquet table filled with food, centerpieces, whatever you can imagine is at a great holiday dinner. There are people sitting around the table and though he wonders how this could be hell, when he gets closer he sees that despite their surroundings, everyone at the table is miserable. Their bodies are withered and their faces, tormented. He walks closer and notices something else is odd: everyone has long wooden spoons for arms. Where most people have shoulder joints, they have the tops of spoon handles and where most people have fingers they have spoon ends, and they are entirely lacking elbows. Faced with a table full of things to eat, they are unable to feed themselves as their spoon-hands can never reach their mouths. Recognizing the hell he is in, the man continues walking.

The man walks until he reaches heaven. Arriving in heaven he is surprised at what he sees: heaven looks exactly like hell. A long banquet table, good things to eat, people gathered, sitting just the same as the people in hell. He looks at their arms and again the people have long spoon-arms. He gets closer and realizes that one thing is different. The people here are happy; there is conversation, their faces are smiling and their bodies are not starved or decaying. Wondering how this can be that the people are not miserable in the face of the same obstacles as hell, he ventures nearer to the table. The people here are clever. Elbow-less spoons are too long to feed one’s own mouth but just long enough to feed the person opposite. Each person takes turns feeding another person. The situation of hell is overcome by the people in heaven. Seeing this and realizing that heaven’s approach is a simple solution to the problems in hell, the man runs back to hell to share with the people the secret to solving their problems. “Feed the person across from you and he will reciprocate,” the man says to a person sitting in hell. The person responds “I will never feed someone until they feed me first.” With this attitude shared by everyone at the table, no one can change the situation. The man realizes that heaven and hell are not necessarily defined by the situation one is in but the response to that situation and how we deal, collectively, with the problems at hand.

I like to think of this story because it reminds me of two things: (1) there is no such thing as a stressful situation, only a stressful response to a situation, and (2) most problems require the admittance that we cannot operate entirely by ourselves. We need to work together, recognizing our dependency on others at times. I’m hoping this applies to a new life event (hmmm…a new job in a new place with new people?) and that it can remind me that despite what I have been told about the stress of completing a PhD and potential obstacles facing a young scientist, attitude and perspective can contribute to the experience in terms of whether we find ourselves in a situation like heaven, or one slightly less pleasant.

Thanks for welcoming me to the lab!

Is the face of academia changing or just perspectives?

Professor. An older absent-minded white male, often found in tweed, with a few chalk or coffee stains along the sleeve edges, engrossed in his personal library of books, several of them open on his desk, is lit by a practical but decorative antique lamp as he hunches over a page, glasses on the end of his nose, referencing from his comfortable perch in the ivory tower the great works of others before him, slowly constructing his own contribution, a lengthy tomb.

Professor. A young 30-something perhaps multi-racial female, often equal parts frantic and focused but always driven, in jeans, large coffee on the desk, surrounded by a computer, smart phone, maybe a book or two as flotsam amidst a wash of printed journal articles, bright fluorescent lighting overhead as she dashes off email after email before settling down to a trampling parade of meetings, interspersed with lectures, grant writing, administrative paperwork and travel schedules to sort, and hopefully eking out just a few more paragraphs on concurrent journal articles in progress.

Photo lifted from http://www.apprise.ox.ac.uk/academic_career_paths/

Does the professor in the 21st century continue to evolve, or is it just that as we get closer to applying for professorships we have a new perspective? Some of the change in job description must also be due to a change in society, technology, and cultural norms.

I also wonder how large a role economics play. Was science a past time belonging only to the upper class (as was undoubtedly the case for Darwin, just check out his house) or is the mythical absent-minded professor just that – a myth?  Dual incomes are becoming increasingly common for a majority of American households, even with overall household incomes decreasing in recent years. Women are increasingly employed full time and are the primary breadwinners in 4 of 10 homes with children under 18, with many single mothers running their own household contributing to this figure. These numbers influence who we see in academic positions, and with attaining both jobs and grants becoming (perhaps increasingly) competitive, the daily thoughtful perusing of books seems like a quaint eccentricity of professors past. Your thoughts?

Picking your fights

This feels a little like jumping on the bandwagon but the stress meeting got me thinking. More specifically it got me over-thinking, about science, life, happiness, where to go next, whether it will be possible…

I would generally agree with Nicole and Silvie that the meeting is useful – its good to know that I am not the only one to sometimes feel inadequate and Matts comment about judging productivity on the timescale of years not weeks certainly made me feel better about my current slump. However, I would argue that the issues brought up fall into two distinct piles. Some like wanting to know more about the safety of the chemicals being used in the lab or needing more practice with talks, emails etc. to overcome nerves are clear solvable problems and as such are useful to be aired. Others are things that sadly I think we are always going to be stuck with. I can look at Nicole* and say it is totally crazy she ever feels dumb but she won’t believe it anymore than I do when she says it to me. As William Falk says “we are all, to some extent, crazy” this is not going to change and maybe spending too much time categorising what form of crazy we are is just picking at the wound. Personally I am becoming an advocate of fixing the things you can and then slamming the door on the basement and going to the pub.

* only singled out due to being my main sounding board when I am ignoring my own advice.

Nut jobs?

We did a lab meeting on stress a few weeks back (1, 2). It’ll be a couple of years before we do another. Meanwhile, the American Psychiatric Association has released the 5th edition of its DSM, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. It looks to me like folks trying to write a manual of infectious diseases before germ theory.

I really admire powerful and succinct writing. We get The Week. The editorials are <300 words long, and they usually knock my socks off with their pointed brevity. Try this opener by William Falk, prompted by the release of DSM-5:

We are all, to some extent, crazy. If you come to know any human being well enough, you eventually gain access to the basement where the traumas and wounds and deprivations are stored; rummage in there for a while, and you begin to understand the neuroses and fixations that shape his or her personality. The successful, reasonably happy people I’ve known are nuts in a way that works for them. Those who struggle and suffer fail to turn their preoccupations to some meaningful use….

One thing at a time…

I listened to a really interesting podcast yesterday while at the microscope quantifying parasitemia. It was a discussion about multitasking, which is exactly what I was doing as the counter went clickety-click for each cell.  Apparently when college students at Stanford use media they are using on average four different forms of media at a time: a sampling of twitter, facebook, email, music, texting, television, etc, while working on writing a paper for a class.  Teenage girls were also surveyed and clocked in using a surprising three concurrent forms of media on average.

There is the misconception that multi-tasking lets you get a lot more done in less time compared to doing things in sequence. Chronic multitaskers are the most willing to believe that this is true. According to the guest (and recent author of this book) the perceived gains from multitasking are a complete and total myth. Across the board, everyone is actually much worse at getting anything done when stretching their brain between several different topics. Even worse news, chronic multitasking causes deficiency when only trying to complete one task!

On this note, I’m going to make more of an effort to focus on only one thing at a time, at least media-wise, and try to follow that one thing through before starting the next.

Moving by the numbers

Since I spent four days of this week on the road, rather than in the lab, I thought I’d share some data I collected along the way.

We traveled for roughly 2,050 miles. The first hypothesis we tested was that cats that have never ridden in the car before will adjust. Our cat took about 4 hours to resign himself to the fate of being trapped in a car, followed by a one hour adjustment period at the beginning of each new day on the road (this means approximately 7 of 34 hours, or 20% of the trip was accompanied by a soundtrack of meowing. The ratio could have been much worse).

Stars of roadside attractions are often larger than life. There was the world’s largest prairie dog, a cow with an extra leg, (we didn’t stop for these), and what was probably one of the largest crosses in the country which dwarfed the trees and made quite the impression even at 80mph.

The largest wind chimes are 49 feet tall and exist in Kansas. This prompted us to test a second hypothesis: that it is windy enough in Kansas that having two bikes strapped to the back of a Civic decreases fuel efficiency by about 10 mpg. Our alternative hypothesis was that the air pressure in the tires had fallen, which we ruled out at the next gas stop (a pressure gage is $1.69 in Nowhere, KS). The fact that our mpg went back to normal after Missouri where there were some hills to break up the wind supported hypothesis #1.

Average gas prices ranged from $3.19 to $3.69 per gallon along route 70. On a side note, I feel this must have been too cheap because there were certainly a lot of cars on the road that had only one occupant, and rarely did we see buses. There was one cyclist chugging along in eastern Colorado with some huge saddlebags, and three hitchhikers along the highway, but I’m not sure we can assume these alternative modes of transportation were due to the price of gas. We kept track of license plates we saw from other states while on the road, documenting 41/50 states. The majority of those missed were from New England, which could be expected since we were heading East and only went as far as the middle of PA. It’s good to be back.

What was that thing Joni Mitchell said?

…that you don’t know what you’ve got ’til it’s gone? Or in my case, going. This always happens to me, and right around this time too. For instance, it wasn’t until two months before moving here that I realised how much I absolutely loved Edinburgh and was going to miss it terribly.

Bye bye Castle in the background

A very sad Nicole on her last day living in Edinburgh

Today I had a surprising realisation: being a postdoc is pretty great. Courtney and I spent an hour talking to grad students who thought that we might have something useful to say. We were invited to a GWIS (Graduate Women In Science, although I noted a Graduate Man there too) ‘Inside the Scientist’s Studio’ event, where they invite two scientists and ask them various questions about getting through grad school, applying for jobs, finding balance, etc. They seemed interested in what we had to say, and we both seemed to find relevant pieces of advice in our brains. I got excited about the possibility that I’d actually have something to say shortly before heading over for the event.

Grad school, for me, was all about not having a clue what I was doing. My postdocs haven’t been much different, actually, but one fundamental thing has changed: I now have a PhD. I managed to make it through the whole process and largely with an absentee (yet endlessly helpful and supportive) supervisor. I can say that I have clearly achieved something. Naturally, this doesn’t stop me from devising theories about how my brain has deteriorated since then and I may never be able to do anything again. But there is some information stored up in that decaying brain, and it’s possible that I know some of it better than almost anyone else.

So, as a postdoc I have slightly more confidence in the fact that I do have a (small) clue about what’s going on and I don’t yet have the enormous burdens — teaching, sourcing funding, managing people and personalities, to name a few of the most terrifying — that come with being a PI.

Up until today, I thought being a PhD student was better than being a postdoc, mostly because it’s absolutely clear what you need to do (hint: finish that thesis!). But now I realise that having fewer bounds on what you need to do, as well as having some ideas stored up about what you’d like to do and the time to actually do it, is pretty freaking awesome. I’m glad I didn’t rush off after being offered a faculty job, but now I wish that I couldn’t count down my remaining postdoc weeks using only my fingers.

UPDATE: I’ve just read the post from Becky Timms and it seems that I’ve simply managed to rephrase her Point #3. Well, folks, it must be true!

Why Science?

At some point Andrew was going around with a video camera asking people why they do science. He actually never asked me with the camera, but I thought about my answer in case he ever did (see Eleanore’s post).

I do science for the same reason that a painter paints, a musician plays, and a dancer dances.  For me conducting science is an act of pure joy.  When I design an experiment or think on a problem I feel a glorious clarity. It feels certain that I’m doing what I was made for. I feel my purpose align with my practice and a deep calm comes over my often scrambled brain. Science brings me great happiness.

For me this sense of peace is addictive. I can even get a contact high when listening to other people talk about doing science.  I just finished leading a graduate student seminar and (despite my boss’s distaste for graduate student course work) found this to be an extremely rewarding experience. These students are in the earliest part of their scientific careers.  It was fantastic to watch them debate ideas with each other. At times, I literally had to sit on my hands and bite my lip to stop from interjecting. They are just starting and I am excited for them.

So for all the bullshit, the hideous funding, the long hours, and an upsetting interaction between my confidence and many of the realities of this line of work, I’m hooked. I am posting this sentiment to our lab blog for a particularly selfish reason: I can easily look at it whenever I need to.