Archive for: March, 2014

I'm going to do what?

Mar 19 2014 Published by under Uncategorized

Below is a one of those "scientists' stories" videos by the American Chemical Society. They have a bunch more up which I recommend (here). I'm struck by the detail in her "how I got into science" story about her high school history teacher directly telling her 1) that she was going to be a scientist, and 2) how to get started. It seems remarkable that a student could show both an interest in and aptitude for science, for a while, but need to be told directly: "You could be a scientist."  I have heard many stories like this from people who end up in science careers. Often around high school or college, some mentor-type person will say "You seem interested in this science stuff. You know you could be a scientist, right? Here's how to get started.".

You too could have a significant effect on a future-scientist by saying something that simple. See, mentoring is easy!

One response so far

Baptized in a pool full of grant money

Mar 16 2014 Published by under Uncategorized

(blame the person that double-dog dared me)

Now I done grew up 'round some people living their life in labs
Granddaddy had the golden flask PCR every day at U Chicago
Some people like the way it feels, some people wanna kill their sorrows
Some people wanna fit in with the popular, that was my problem
I was in a dark room, loud tunes, looking to make a vow soon
That I'mma get granted up, fillin' up my cup, I see the crowd mood
Changing by the minute and the record on repeat
Took a pipette then another pipette, then somebody said to me:

sci, why you babysitting only two or three grants
I'mma show you how to turn it up a notch
First you get a swimming pool full of RFA’s, then you dive in it
Pool full of RFA’s, then you dive in it
I wave a few grants, then I watch 'em all flock
All the postdocs wanna play Kandel
I got a swimming pool full of RFAs and they dive in it
Pool full of RFA’s, I'mma dive in it"

.
clean version, for your sensitive ears
RFA = Request for Applications

 

2 responses so far

a modest comparison

Mar 06 2014 Published by under Uncategorized

S: sup big worm
W: how much you got left?
S: man I got a lot
W: you still don't have my manuscript?
S: man I'm trying to. PI's is broke these days
W: I don't think you're applying yourself
S: huh
W: you reanalyzing my data?
S: hell you fuck with your shit
W: you reanalyzing my data?
S: now why would I do that
W: I'm going to have to fuck you up. Playing with my authorship is like playing with my emotions.

One response so far

Corner Cases and the Big Big Tent of Science

Mar 03 2014 Published by under Uncategorized

During grad school I spent a year or so being supported by a very broadly defined interdisciplinary grant. At fist I hated it. It meant attending a weekly meeting with everyone at university associated with the program. A group of people I never would have voluntarily chosen to associate with professionally. They were nice people but. This is science?! This is research? What are these people doing?! ..these were my common complains.  It took me a while to get to know these disparate fields. Once I did I saw how much their constraints (and questions) were totally different than mine and it started to make more sense. I just had no idea initially. What they were doing had seemed ridiculous to me because of my underlying assumptions t about research priorities, questions worth investigating, and constraints in answering those questions.

This takes me to the PLOS open data announcement. Let's get this out of the way: not a bad idea. But a tough roll out. I appreciate that PLOS is in a difficult position here. PLos ONE covers all of science. That's a big big tent.

I mean really big. Easily underestimated, when was the last time you seriously talked to someone who works in a research area vastly different than what you do, easy to underestimate.

Here's the list from PLOS One: Biology & Life Science, Computer & Information Sciences, Earth Sciences, Ecology & Environmental Sciences, Engineering & Technology, Medicine & Health Sciences, Physical Sciences, Science Policy, Social Sciences.

That is a massive diversity of approaches to Science. I don't even know what I could confidently generalize about all of these areas. Social Science itself includes many disciplines. This is not simply 5 different ways to do biology. The data that PLOS is requesting varies greatly in, size, type, difficulty of collection, uniqueness, etc. etc.

This difficulty with figuring out the in and outs and whathaveyous of the big tent is relevant for any big how to improve science proposal. These proposals frequently suffer from a bit of discipline (or institution type) myopia. Some the differences across disciplines are merely historical accidents. Others may reflect real differences in constraints, goals, current professional realities, etc. That these differences exist, are important to be cognizant of, and cannot be understated.

(I am a little amused at both large video data and human data being mentioned as unusual corner cases. There are three or four labs on my hallway that use both of those.)

3 responses so far