Advice from elders
Confirms my opinion that
These things take some time.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Women, Know Your Hormones!
Arlenna at ChemicalBiLOLogy just posted an excellent reflection on what it means to be in a position of leadership when you know you aren't at your best and that there's nothing you can do about it.
Specifically, for many women this feeling of the inability to be who you actually are corresponds to nearly a quarter of our adult lives...you all know what I mean. She is bringing up a topic that makes me really uncomfortable. So I am blogging about it to try and sort all this out.
Discussing the role of hormonal cycles in the way women lead is as close to a taboo subject as I think we can get. I am squeamish discussing it because even acknowledging that the fundamentals of our female-specific biology can influence our critical thinking skills and our interactions with others opens the door for all that not-lately-dead criticism that women are unpredictable and irrational (if only at certain times of the month) and therefore should not be trusted to leadership positions. If we allow people to believe it is true that women can lose control of their abilities to behave in a rational manner and think clearly due to something as uncontrollable as hormones, then I can understand why we have still not elected a female president of the United States.
It is classical sexist drivel for anyone to suggest that a woman is doing poorly at her job because of her hormones. Any man with a modicum of sense knows better than to suggest that it might be that time of month when a woman has a tough time holding it down emotionally...even if that is precisely the reason that she is having a tough time. Yet, if we publicly acknowledge that this is the case, we are validating this idea that women are somehow weak and sometimes incapable of maintaining their rationality.
It affects us all differently so I would be loathe to imply that because I become hyper-emotional, and I take everything personally, and I feel that I can do nothing right, and I feel so out of control for a week out of every month, that every woman must also endure this same reaction. I would never want to give anyone license to assume that all women experience such a loss of control...perhaps some never do. So I never, ever talk about it.
[Warning: This is about to get personal...if it's too much info, feel free to stop reading here. I am telling this story to illustrate a point, but don't feel compelled to read if you're not interested.]
I've never been regular. I used to go for 6 weeks or 6 months without menstruating. It's idiopathic. No idea why, nor whether it will affect my fertility. My doctor is concerned that I produce insufficient hormones to manage my bone density so I am on contraceptives, essentially as hormone replacement therapy, which makes me very regular. You could set a clock to it. When I am not taking drugs for this, I don't cycle often so I rarely experience the kind of mental and emotional haywire symptoms that we're talking about here.
It's taken some time to find a drug and a dose that does the job, while leaving me with side effects that are at least tolerable. I've been through three different drugs in different doses before settling on one regimen that I can live with.
I was still trying out different doses and meds early in my grad school career. In fact, I cleverly agreed to go on a new regimen three weeks before the oral section of my candidacy exam...which means going through the hormone withdrawal phase of new drug the week of my exam. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
The oral section of the exam is extremely stressful. Imagine standing in front of 4-5 faculty members for 2-3 hours attempting to answer any question they decide to ask about your knowledge of your subfield. Theoretically, this exam is supposed to cover what you learn in your course work, plus fundamental concepts in the field that may or may not have been discussed. But since most of the faculty don't teach, they tend to ask questions about their own pet interests as they relate to subfield - in short, they pretty much pull questions out of their asses and you are expected to apply your fundamental knowledge of subfield to answer these questions.
I felt very well-prepared for my exam. I had read and practiced. I consider myself to be pretty good at thinking on my feet. But I was still pretty nervous considering that the three of my cohorts that had already tested received conditional passes on the exam.
Still, I felt ready and confident walking into that room. They started me out with a nice warmup question: describe in detail signaling pathway X, then discuss how it functions in regulation of process Y. I could have done this in my sleep by this point, so away I went.
Then, inexplicably, half-way through my explanation of signaling pathway X...
What's this? Why is my face wet? Are these tears trickling down my face? Am I crying? What the fuck!?!? You've got to be kidding me! OK, help!! What's going on? Pull yourself together AA, you're still talking about the signaling pathway and you're doing fine. Breathe. Don't hyperventialte. Why can't I stop the water works?!?! What's happening to me!?!?
All the while not missing a beat on answering the question...all I can say is that it's a damn good thing I had practiced so well. One of the exam committee members asked if I was OK and all I could say was, "Ummm...I don't know. This has never happened to me before. I think I'm just really nervous. I'm sorry, this is so embarrassing. Let's just continue so we can get this thing over with."
I continued to answer questions on total auto-pilot while the waterworks continued for the next two hours. They passed me, and said they were impressed that I did so well answering their questions when it was clear that I was having a tough time holding it down emotionally - that I must really know my stuff to still be able to pull it out in the midst of all that.
The whole experience was terrifying and mortifying and it took me quite some time to realize just what had happened. I had an anxiety attack in the middle of my exam. Seeing as I had never experienced any such thing before or since, I think it's safe to blame the hormones. (I did not stay on those drugs for much longer.)
This little episode inspired GrAdvisor's "AA has a victim mentality" binge -- he said that he wouldn't have passed me for "playing the pity card" -- and I never felt that I could tell him what really happened. I don't like the fact that he thinks I cried to manipulate my exam committee into "going easy" on me (in truth I don't remember enough of what they asked me to know if they did). But I'm just not comfortable giving him the details of my medical history, especially concerning my sexual and reproductive health. And even if I were, I wouldn't want to give anyone fodder for the "women operate under the tyranny of their hormones" fire. But sometimes it's true. And it sucks.
I hate that I'm sometimes not in control of my thoughts and interactions with people. I have enough discipline to moderate my outward actions - I try to avoid putting myself in situations where I might be tempted to snap when it's that time of the month. I try to carefully censor the words that come out of my mouth. But my internal monologue is coming from someone I don't recognize. It's frustrating and sometimes terrifying to feel so out of control. Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster that it doesn't last any longer than a few days at a time.
I think we all keep it under wraps so no one knows that we're sometimes not in control and not entirely rational...it's a hard enough thing to admit to ourselves, and downright dangerous to admit to anyone else.
Specifically, for many women this feeling of the inability to be who you actually are corresponds to nearly a quarter of our adult lives...you all know what I mean. She is bringing up a topic that makes me really uncomfortable. So I am blogging about it to try and sort all this out.
Discussing the role of hormonal cycles in the way women lead is as close to a taboo subject as I think we can get. I am squeamish discussing it because even acknowledging that the fundamentals of our female-specific biology can influence our critical thinking skills and our interactions with others opens the door for all that not-lately-dead criticism that women are unpredictable and irrational (if only at certain times of the month) and therefore should not be trusted to leadership positions. If we allow people to believe it is true that women can lose control of their abilities to behave in a rational manner and think clearly due to something as uncontrollable as hormones, then I can understand why we have still not elected a female president of the United States.
It is classical sexist drivel for anyone to suggest that a woman is doing poorly at her job because of her hormones. Any man with a modicum of sense knows better than to suggest that it might be that time of month when a woman has a tough time holding it down emotionally...even if that is precisely the reason that she is having a tough time. Yet, if we publicly acknowledge that this is the case, we are validating this idea that women are somehow weak and sometimes incapable of maintaining their rationality.
It affects us all differently so I would be loathe to imply that because I become hyper-emotional, and I take everything personally, and I feel that I can do nothing right, and I feel so out of control for a week out of every month, that every woman must also endure this same reaction. I would never want to give anyone license to assume that all women experience such a loss of control...perhaps some never do. So I never, ever talk about it.
[Warning: This is about to get personal...if it's too much info, feel free to stop reading here. I am telling this story to illustrate a point, but don't feel compelled to read if you're not interested.]
I've never been regular. I used to go for 6 weeks or 6 months without menstruating. It's idiopathic. No idea why, nor whether it will affect my fertility. My doctor is concerned that I produce insufficient hormones to manage my bone density so I am on contraceptives, essentially as hormone replacement therapy, which makes me very regular. You could set a clock to it. When I am not taking drugs for this, I don't cycle often so I rarely experience the kind of mental and emotional haywire symptoms that we're talking about here.
It's taken some time to find a drug and a dose that does the job, while leaving me with side effects that are at least tolerable. I've been through three different drugs in different doses before settling on one regimen that I can live with.
I was still trying out different doses and meds early in my grad school career. In fact, I cleverly agreed to go on a new regimen three weeks before the oral section of my candidacy exam...which means going through the hormone withdrawal phase of new drug the week of my exam. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
The oral section of the exam is extremely stressful. Imagine standing in front of 4-5 faculty members for 2-3 hours attempting to answer any question they decide to ask about your knowledge of your subfield. Theoretically, this exam is supposed to cover what you learn in your course work, plus fundamental concepts in the field that may or may not have been discussed. But since most of the faculty don't teach, they tend to ask questions about their own pet interests as they relate to subfield - in short, they pretty much pull questions out of their asses and you are expected to apply your fundamental knowledge of subfield to answer these questions.
I felt very well-prepared for my exam. I had read and practiced. I consider myself to be pretty good at thinking on my feet. But I was still pretty nervous considering that the three of my cohorts that had already tested received conditional passes on the exam.
Still, I felt ready and confident walking into that room. They started me out with a nice warmup question: describe in detail signaling pathway X, then discuss how it functions in regulation of process Y. I could have done this in my sleep by this point, so away I went.
Then, inexplicably, half-way through my explanation of signaling pathway X...
What's this? Why is my face wet? Are these tears trickling down my face? Am I crying? What the fuck!?!? You've got to be kidding me! OK, help!! What's going on? Pull yourself together AA, you're still talking about the signaling pathway and you're doing fine. Breathe. Don't hyperventialte. Why can't I stop the water works?!?! What's happening to me!?!?
All the while not missing a beat on answering the question...all I can say is that it's a damn good thing I had practiced so well. One of the exam committee members asked if I was OK and all I could say was, "Ummm...I don't know. This has never happened to me before. I think I'm just really nervous. I'm sorry, this is so embarrassing. Let's just continue so we can get this thing over with."
I continued to answer questions on total auto-pilot while the waterworks continued for the next two hours. They passed me, and said they were impressed that I did so well answering their questions when it was clear that I was having a tough time holding it down emotionally - that I must really know my stuff to still be able to pull it out in the midst of all that.
The whole experience was terrifying and mortifying and it took me quite some time to realize just what had happened. I had an anxiety attack in the middle of my exam. Seeing as I had never experienced any such thing before or since, I think it's safe to blame the hormones. (I did not stay on those drugs for much longer.)
This little episode inspired GrAdvisor's "AA has a victim mentality" binge -- he said that he wouldn't have passed me for "playing the pity card" -- and I never felt that I could tell him what really happened. I don't like the fact that he thinks I cried to manipulate my exam committee into "going easy" on me (in truth I don't remember enough of what they asked me to know if they did). But I'm just not comfortable giving him the details of my medical history, especially concerning my sexual and reproductive health. And even if I were, I wouldn't want to give anyone fodder for the "women operate under the tyranny of their hormones" fire. But sometimes it's true. And it sucks.
I hate that I'm sometimes not in control of my thoughts and interactions with people. I have enough discipline to moderate my outward actions - I try to avoid putting myself in situations where I might be tempted to snap when it's that time of the month. I try to carefully censor the words that come out of my mouth. But my internal monologue is coming from someone I don't recognize. It's frustrating and sometimes terrifying to feel so out of control. Thank the Flying Spaghetti Monster that it doesn't last any longer than a few days at a time.
I think we all keep it under wraps so no one knows that we're sometimes not in control and not entirely rational...it's a hard enough thing to admit to ourselves, and downright dangerous to admit to anyone else.
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Women, Know Your Limits!
Well, drdrA scooped up my last post on what she eloquently described as a "Drive-By Character Assassination" and turned it into a really enlightening conversation. [I am quoting heavily in this post because I am tired and lazy...go on over to drdrA's to get the post and comments in their entirety.]
What would you do if you were the Young Female PI who was being personally and publicly flogged by a well-respected imbecile?
I responded with the script that I have been coached to give in such a situation [tone of voice is difficult to deduce in written media -- this should be read with a tone that is dripping in snark]:
Given that I have been advised to "tone it down" when responding to this kind of stupid criticism on the podium, I was feeling pretty good about this response...I felt like it did a nice job of toe-ing that very fine line between standing up for your data and coming across as "an obstinate little bitch".
Comrade PhysioProf disagrees and offers an alternative response:
Clearly a WAY better response for all the reasons he brought up...still, I would feel just a little uncomfortable actually saying this (so I will be practicing it in front of a mirror before I give my next talk, in case there is cause to use it...otherwise I will probably fumble).
Why would I feel uncomfortable saying this? Well, for the reason I told CPP that I had been coached to mind my manners a bit more:
CPP offered a great response to such a stupid and personal attack and I think that most people who got what was going on with Dr. Grand Poobah's little nasty-fest would be highly amused and also pretty impressed to hear the speaker come back with this...that is, assumming that the speaker was a man. Not all, but certainly some people would be less than amused if the speaker was a woman - it's a shit double-standard, but it's there. In fact, the men who have coached me on how to moderate my response to these kinds of attacks openly acknowledge that this double standard exists and that it's crap, but still they advise me to "play a little nicer" in order to prevent me from shooting myself in the foot.
Bora brings up an excellent point:
All true, so why don't we fight it a little harder? Why do we as women listen when people tell us to tone it down for our own good? DrdrA says it best:
Which brings us to this awful dilemma:
If I go for putting the old geezer in his place, then I risk losing people on my science (which is really the point) because they are distracted by the little spat between Dr. Grand Poobah, and *gasp* Little Old Me. I also could be risking some scientific credibility and possibly a chance at promotion - you don't want to be better known for being an Obstinate Little Bitch than for a Kick-Ass Scientist as tenure review rolls around (not that I'm there yet but reputations, particularly nasty ones, are tough to shake). If I go for just sticking to the science, maybe I lose some recognition and opportunity (people tend to forget shrinking violets), and I've let down other women in science by reinforcing the idea that women and their research can be doormats for the Dr. Grand Poobahs of the world to wipe their boots on. So what to do?
The truth is, as much as we would like that double standard to go away (and with some effort it might), the fact remains that right now it's still there. No way around that. So when we run into it how do we deal with it?
And with that, I will leave you with this little gem, because it is hysterically funny (hysterical - get it?) and because I am very tired. Discuss at your leisure.
Supplemental Video 1: Required cultural sensitivity course for entering female graduate students.
*Bold is my emphasis.
What would you do if you were the Young Female PI who was being personally and publicly flogged by a well-respected imbecile?
I responded with the script that I have been coached to give in such a situation [tone of voice is difficult to deduce in written media -- this should be read with a tone that is dripping in snark]:
–I’m sorry, I misheard you. Could you repeat your QUESTION?
If he persisted with the “impossible results”:
–Perhaps I am misunderstanding your QUESTION. Are you saying that you believe that these RESULTS are impossible? Because I can assure you that they were produced exactly as I have presented. If you’d like to continue to discuss my INTERPRETATION of the results I would be happy to meet with you during the break so that we can sort out this misunderstanding.
Given that I have been advised to "tone it down" when responding to this kind of stupid criticism on the podium, I was feeling pretty good about this response...I felt like it did a nice job of toe-ing that very fine line between standing up for your data and coming across as "an obstinate little bitch".
Comrade PhysioProf disagrees and offers an alternative response:
I disagree with this approach, because it starts off way too defensive: “I’m sorry”; “perhaps I am misunderstanding”; “I can assure you”. *Never* say, “I’m sorry” when giving a presentation. And why pretend that *you* are misunderstanding, when you are not? By saying, “I can assure you…”, you are validating the premise of the attack by attempting to defend against it on the merits.
Rather, when it becomes clear that a questioner is being an asshole, go on the *offensive*: “Clearly, you are misunderstanding the point. Feel free to approach me after the talk and we can try to figure out where you are going wrong.” ZING!*
Clearly a WAY better response for all the reasons he brought up...still, I would feel just a little uncomfortable actually saying this (so I will be practicing it in front of a mirror before I give my next talk, in case there is cause to use it...otherwise I will probably fumble).
Why would I feel uncomfortable saying this? Well, for the reason I told CPP that I had been coached to mind my manners a bit more:
Taking the offensive without distracting people from your data is a VERY difficult balance to strike for young women - I know that you know this. I have noticed that when young females use this approach, other people’s reaction is generally, “wow, what an obstinate little bitch!” rather than “good for her for telling that geezer where to shove it”.
CPP offered a great response to such a stupid and personal attack and I think that most people who got what was going on with Dr. Grand Poobah's little nasty-fest would be highly amused and also pretty impressed to hear the speaker come back with this...that is, assumming that the speaker was a man. Not all, but certainly some people would be less than amused if the speaker was a woman - it's a shit double-standard, but it's there. In fact, the men who have coached me on how to moderate my response to these kinds of attacks openly acknowledge that this double standard exists and that it's crap, but still they advise me to "play a little nicer" in order to prevent me from shooting myself in the foot.
Bora brings up an excellent point:
“Tone it down” and “Why are you so angry?” are typical sleazy tactics used by a person in power over a person not in power. It was used against people of other races, against women, against gays, against atheists - this is the way to make their greivances silent and perpetuate the status quo, the power structure in which they are on the top of the pecking order. The entire formal, convoluted, Victorian-proper discourse one is supposed to use in science is geared towards protecting the current power structure and the system that perpetuates it. Keeping the dissenters down and out. Bur sometimes, anger, or snark, or direct insult, are the jolt that the system needs and it will have to come from the people outside the power structure, and it would have to occur often and intensely until they start paying attention.
All true, so why don't we fight it a little harder? Why do we as women listen when people tell us to tone it down for our own good? DrdrA says it best:
Then there’s that shooting yourself in the foot business- its the ‘do you want to get what you want, or do you want to make a point’… cause you are only making it harder for yourself if you are trying to make a point while trying to move forward. I feel like many times I’m stuck between pushing myself forward in my career as quickly as possible without changing a thing as I move along- or with advancing more slowly (or dealing with the fear that I might not advance at all) because I tried to make a difference and nudge the status quo.
Which brings us to this awful dilemma:
Which is more important to me? That I promote my science? Or that I let people lose sight of the science in order to start chipping away at this double standard?
If I go for putting the old geezer in his place, then I risk losing people on my science (which is really the point) because they are distracted by the little spat between Dr. Grand Poobah, and *gasp* Little Old Me. I also could be risking some scientific credibility and possibly a chance at promotion - you don't want to be better known for being an Obstinate Little Bitch than for a Kick-Ass Scientist as tenure review rolls around (not that I'm there yet but reputations, particularly nasty ones, are tough to shake). If I go for just sticking to the science, maybe I lose some recognition and opportunity (people tend to forget shrinking violets), and I've let down other women in science by reinforcing the idea that women and their research can be doormats for the Dr. Grand Poobahs of the world to wipe their boots on. So what to do?
The truth is, as much as we would like that double standard to go away (and with some effort it might), the fact remains that right now it's still there. No way around that. So when we run into it how do we deal with it?
And with that, I will leave you with this little gem, because it is hysterically funny (hysterical - get it?) and because I am very tired. Discuss at your leisure.
Supplemental Video 1: Required cultural sensitivity course for entering female graduate students.
*Bold is my emphasis.
Friday, November 21, 2008
Lessons learned this week
I have spent the last two days sitting in a Sub-field Symposium hosted by Really Big Research Institute. I really should be preparing my presentation for my committee meeting on Monday, but since Hated Data Set continues to be a debacle I figured that hearing about some other people's research success would do me some good. Also because GrAdvisor is the organizer and expects us to be there. I have been coming in early and leaving late to eak in some experiments that can run while my butt spends 9-5 in the seminar seats.
Here is what I have learned:
Yesterday the first talk in one of the sessions was really interesting and ground-breaking and was composed of several incredibly elegant experiments that got at all the beautiful little nuances of this master process in sub-field. It was one of those talks that just makes you want to break out in song by the end. So good! Even more impressive was that the speaker was very young, fresh out of a post-doc, just started the lab a few years ago and is already knocking out this totally hot science. And a woman...not that that should make it surprising, just that I noticed.
Supplemental Movie 1: Re-enactment of my reaction to this awesome talk...I really did almost spontaneously break into song at the end!
At the end of her talk, some greybeard in the back asked a really good question:
Greybeard: Have you considered that sub-population A of the field you are testing actually arises from a separate source, and that this may affect the implementation of Really Elegant Experiment and thus the effects of sub-population A on the master program of this system?
Speaker: Thank you for bringing that up! Yes, we have considered the effects of multiple sources...I didn't have time to get into the data in this talk but we have ruled out that possibility, and I should also remind you that our experimental design included a global manipulation of the system so that it affects all sub-populations at their sources. As such, our conclusions remain that this effect is totally nuanced and novel and cool.
Greybeard: No, I think that you have not considered sub-population A's source because your results are clearly impossible!
[Me: {WTF!?!?! Who the hell is that guy!?!?!}]
Speaker: [!!!, recovers from shock, proceeds in a calm and collected manner] Well, let me see if I can explain this more clearly...[returns to experimental design slide]. As you can see, with our experimental design, we are implementing a global change in the system which includes all the sub-populations at each of their local sources. This could affect sub-population A in the following way, which would cause this perturbation. As you can see from the results, this is not the case, which means that sub-population A continues to behave appropriately in the context of the system. Thus, we conclude that the effect we are seeing is the result of nuanced, novel and cool master regulation of the system at large, rather than a specific effect that would exclude sub-population A.
Greybeard: No, no, no. Your results are just not possible. We can talk after the session so that I can explain to you why you are wrong.
Speaker: [Tight-lipped "smile"] Sure, I'd be happy to discuss my findings with you at the break.
[Me: I know enough about this to follow and she had me convinced...perhaps Greybeard knows something more about this field to consider some other factor, but she has clearly addressed this...wait a minute!! Did he really just call her a liar!?!? I mean, if you take issue with the interpretation of the results, by all means, question and discuss! But to tell someone that their results are impossible!?! What, like she made them up? Is that what you're saying? That you think she got up here and gave a talk based on fraudulent results? Would you have said that to a fellow Greybeard? I kind of doubt it...I have no idea who you are buddy, but congratulations, you just convinced me that are possibly the biggest asshat on the planet.]
Session Chair: Thank you, Speaker, for that very interesting and exciting talk...our next speaker is Dr. Grand Poobah from Fancy-Pants Research Institute. [Greybeard steps up to the podium]
[Me:....figures....]
I asked Fellow Student what he thought of this exchange at the break...he used to work on that specific subfield so I figured he would know about the sub-population A issue. He explained why sub-pop A could have been an issue but also that with Speaker's system, it shouldn't be. He totally didn't get that Dr. Grand Poobah was being insulting...maybe because of the language barrier. I reiterated the exchange along with which particular parts I found objectionable.
Fellow Student: Oh, really? He said that!!? I missed that...hmmmm...well, you know he is very famous in this field.
Me: [Grrrrr.] Yes, I gathered.
Fellow Student: [pause] But really?!?! He said that!?!? Did he really say her results were impossible? Famous is no reason to be so rude.
Thank you. 'Nuff said.
Here is what I have learned:
- I have a very short attention span. 3 x 25 minute talks/session is A LOT more than I can process, even if all three talks are on topics that I find intensely interesting and in which I have more than enough background to understand what's going on. [Note to self: Ask Dr. at my next pretend-to-manage-migraines appointment if Ritalin or Adderall have any off-label indications for migraines...you know, seeing as my actual migraine medication is totally falling down on the job.]
- There are several other sub-sub-fields in which I would consider doing a post-doc. I was aware of these fields even as an undergrad, but I had completely forgotten about them...I think that I have been wearing dissertation blinders for too long.
- One of the three transgenic mice we could use for Shiny New Technique probably won't work for my purposes (I already know that the other two will, just not as well as I had initially hoped). This little tidbit via a coffee break conversation with one of the speakers who also works on these tg mice, also some tricks for getting the troublesome genotyping to work - super nice guy!
- Catering at Really Big Research Institute is generally pretty good...but the fish is not to be trusted! [I've been regretting that choice all afternoon.]
- Professor Grand Poobah from Fancy-Pants Research Institute is a total dick!
Yesterday the first talk in one of the sessions was really interesting and ground-breaking and was composed of several incredibly elegant experiments that got at all the beautiful little nuances of this master process in sub-field. It was one of those talks that just makes you want to break out in song by the end. So good! Even more impressive was that the speaker was very young, fresh out of a post-doc, just started the lab a few years ago and is already knocking out this totally hot science. And a woman...not that that should make it surprising, just that I noticed.
Supplemental Movie 1: Re-enactment of my reaction to this awesome talk...I really did almost spontaneously break into song at the end!
At the end of her talk, some greybeard in the back asked a really good question:
Greybeard: Have you considered that sub-population A of the field you are testing actually arises from a separate source, and that this may affect the implementation of Really Elegant Experiment and thus the effects of sub-population A on the master program of this system?
Speaker: Thank you for bringing that up! Yes, we have considered the effects of multiple sources...I didn't have time to get into the data in this talk but we have ruled out that possibility, and I should also remind you that our experimental design included a global manipulation of the system so that it affects all sub-populations at their sources. As such, our conclusions remain that this effect is totally nuanced and novel and cool.
Greybeard: No, I think that you have not considered sub-population A's source because your results are clearly impossible!
[Me: {WTF!?!?! Who the hell is that guy!?!?!}]
Speaker: [!!!, recovers from shock, proceeds in a calm and collected manner] Well, let me see if I can explain this more clearly...[returns to experimental design slide]. As you can see, with our experimental design, we are implementing a global change in the system which includes all the sub-populations at each of their local sources. This could affect sub-population A in the following way, which would cause this perturbation. As you can see from the results, this is not the case, which means that sub-population A continues to behave appropriately in the context of the system. Thus, we conclude that the effect we are seeing is the result of nuanced, novel and cool master regulation of the system at large, rather than a specific effect that would exclude sub-population A.
Greybeard: No, no, no. Your results are just not possible. We can talk after the session so that I can explain to you why you are wrong.
Speaker: [Tight-lipped "smile"] Sure, I'd be happy to discuss my findings with you at the break.
[Me: I know enough about this to follow and she had me convinced...perhaps Greybeard knows something more about this field to consider some other factor, but she has clearly addressed this...wait a minute!! Did he really just call her a liar!?!? I mean, if you take issue with the interpretation of the results, by all means, question and discuss! But to tell someone that their results are impossible!?! What, like she made them up? Is that what you're saying? That you think she got up here and gave a talk based on fraudulent results? Would you have said that to a fellow Greybeard? I kind of doubt it...I have no idea who you are buddy, but congratulations, you just convinced me that are possibly the biggest asshat on the planet.]
Session Chair: Thank you, Speaker, for that very interesting and exciting talk...our next speaker is Dr. Grand Poobah from Fancy-Pants Research Institute. [Greybeard steps up to the podium]
[Me:....figures....]
I asked Fellow Student what he thought of this exchange at the break...he used to work on that specific subfield so I figured he would know about the sub-population A issue. He explained why sub-pop A could have been an issue but also that with Speaker's system, it shouldn't be. He totally didn't get that Dr. Grand Poobah was being insulting...maybe because of the language barrier. I reiterated the exchange along with which particular parts I found objectionable.
Fellow Student: Oh, really? He said that!!? I missed that...hmmmm...well, you know he is very famous in this field.
Me: [Grrrrr.] Yes, I gathered.
Fellow Student: [pause] But really?!?! He said that!?!? Did he really say her results were impossible? Famous is no reason to be so rude.
Thank you. 'Nuff said.
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Step 9: Weep (or, ALWAYS look gift primers in the mouth)
Not because my experiment gave me the result that could punch a big hole in the middle of my project.
Because my positive controls failed.
Again.
Which could mean one of two things:
I have ordered new primers...thankfully only have to repeat the PCR on all the samples that I have spent months generating...no more processing. [Phew!]
Thanks everyone for all your good wishes...I may be asking for them again.
Because my positive controls failed.
Again.
Which could mean one of two things:
- published expression pattern in control tissues = false (highly unlikely)
- primers are not what they say they are (much more likely)
I have ordered new primers...thankfully only have to repeat the PCR on all the samples that I have spent months generating...no more processing. [Phew!]
Thanks everyone for all your good wishes...I may be asking for them again.
Hated Data Set is haunting me.
I am now on item 7 of processing Hated Data Set. I will complete items 7-9 today.
I set up STEP 3 to run overnight before I left yesterday. I could have hung around for another hour to analyze the results...but I didn't think I could take the disappointment if a) it didn't work, or b) it worked but gave me the result that will punch a big hole in the middle of this project. This morning I am feeling slightly more courageous, so off I go to run the gel and meet my fate. Cross your fingers for me...I will need mine uncrossed to load the gel.
- Finish screening for appropriate parameters to move onto STEP 2 of processing (bad news = many do not fall within these parameters, good news = fewer samples to deal with in next steps).
- Categorize according to experimental group.
- Determine which controls are possible (dependent upon lowest yield sample of each experimental group).
- Complete STEP 2 including possible control methods.
- Recalculate yield from STEP 2.
- Perform STEP 3.
- Cross fingers and hope it gives me a good result, or at the very least, an interpretable result.
- Analyze.
- Weep or rejoice.
I set up STEP 3 to run overnight before I left yesterday. I could have hung around for another hour to analyze the results...but I didn't think I could take the disappointment if a) it didn't work, or b) it worked but gave me the result that will punch a big hole in the middle of this project. This morning I am feeling slightly more courageous, so off I go to run the gel and meet my fate. Cross your fingers for me...I will need mine uncrossed to load the gel.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Work Life Balance Continued...
Wow! My last post on work-life balance, and what that means to each of us in contrast to other people in academia, is the first post of mine that has solicited comments in the double digits - woot!
Clearly, this is a topic near and dear to all your hearts. And it has generated some really great discussion in the comments. Disgruntled Julie related that her PI asks her to take up the slack for some of the lab parents who have to leave early to pick up their kids (WTF!?!?). Silver Fox chimed in with what I would consider some very reasonable and rational expectations regarding the boundaries of working hours and other priorities (Silver Fox, can I come and work for you? Because I think it will be a cold day in hell before I find someone in my current field with this kind of sanity). Microbiologist XX left a comment that she thought was off-topic, but I really don't think it is:
A lot of this work-life balance thing is observed, measured, and quantified in terms of hours in (or out) of the lab. Since general scientific success might be measured by other parameters (publication records?) for which data points are somewhat few and far between on the scale of day-to-day, it is only natural for our PIs to measure our work ethic and (perhaps inappropriately) our commitment to our project, our lab, our career, and science in general by other means (i.e., hours that our butts spend in the lab).
But as MXX very accurately points out, hours in do not always equal results out. I myself go through peaks of multi-task-like-a-maniac and troughs of faff-around-on-the-internet. And you know what I realized recently? The troughs correspond to when GrAdvisor is in town, and the peaks to when he is traveling. Why? At first glance it doesn't make any sense. He doesn't spend a lot of time in the lab so it's not like he's hovering over my shoulder or distracting me from my work. How is it that his presence in the office down the hall impedes my efficiency?
The reason is that regardless of how efficient I have been during the week, he expects to see me in on the weekends. As MXX pointed out, multi-tasking-like-a-mad-woman is not a sustainable level of activity/efficiency 6-7 days/week. So if I have to come in 6-7 days/week to pacify GrAdvisor, my efficiency takes a major hit. I get tired! And so I spend a lot of my hours in the lab faffing around on the internet when that time could be better spent working. But it doesn't stop there. When I am not being very efficient, I get depressed about my progress (because I am faffing around when I should be setting up more experiments), and general malaise sets in. I get a nasty case of Imposter Syndrome because things are not progressing as I know that they should and I beat myself up for not being a better scientist. It's kind of exhausting -- by 6pm I feel tired and go home even if just another hour could mean another experiment that runs overnight...but since I feel like my effort (or rather hours) applied do not yield results, what's the point? And then I lose motivation to set anything up because it's all going to fail anyway, right? This is not balance.
When GrAdvisor is out of town, I don't have to show up on the weekends to satisfy his accounting of my commitment to my job. As a result I feel free to take the weekends off, and knowing that I will do so motivates me to be much more efficient during the regular week so that I will not feel guilty about having two whole days away from the lab. Because of my somewhat bipolar approach, I find that I want to work longer hours/day when I am multi-tasking-like-a-mad-woman because I am getting SO MUCH DONE! This means that by Friday afternoon I feel that I have earned the weekend off...so I stay home (or go out) and enjoy the other things that I like besides science...and by the time Monday rolls around again I am excited to get back to the lab and see what else I can knock out this week. With this approach I feel that I am more productive in terms of data produced and experiments finished. This is how I know when my work and life are balanced.
In both cases I spend roughly equal amounts of time getting unequal amounts of work done. But my PI tends to measure face-time...did he see me come in on Saturday? If I was being really productive on Friday, why not continue to apply that efficiency on Saturday? If I wasn't all that productive on Friday, why am I not there picking up the slack on Saturday and Sunday?
It's a Catch-22...either way I lose my weekend.
It's a good thing he travels a lot. I couldn't sustain the 6-7 days/week of inefficiency if it happened all the time.
And like MXX, I kind of look forward to the day when I have children and therefore am not expected to do face-time 6-7 days/week...then I will have reason to maintain my super-efficient 5 days/week habit and it will be understood that this is allowed since I will "have a family" in a sense that is very different from the family I have right now.
Clearly, this is a topic near and dear to all your hearts. And it has generated some really great discussion in the comments. Disgruntled Julie related that her PI asks her to take up the slack for some of the lab parents who have to leave early to pick up their kids (WTF!?!?). Silver Fox chimed in with what I would consider some very reasonable and rational expectations regarding the boundaries of working hours and other priorities (Silver Fox, can I come and work for you? Because I think it will be a cold day in hell before I find someone in my current field with this kind of sanity). Microbiologist XX left a comment that she thought was off-topic, but I really don't think it is:
I despise being told how many hours I should be in the lab or that I need to come in on the weekend. First of all, it isn't really fair and at the end of the day, it doesn't mean anything.
For example, when I am in the lab, I am busy from the time I walk in the door until the time I walk out. I multi-task my ass off. If I have a 30 min. incubation, then I start something new during that time. So, in one 8-10hr day, I get a shit-ton of stuff done. Sure it is super-stressful sometimes, but it is how I prefer to work. If I were to keep this pace up 6-7 days a week, I would go insane. In fact, if I were forced to come in on the weekends, I wouldn't get anymore done, I would probably just cram less into each day.
A different example. One of my co-workers chooses to read news stories and search the internet during all her incubations, etc. She gets way less done than I do in her day and she typically works at least one day every weekend.
So, it seems unfair to put a time expectation or a demand that you work almost every weekend when people work so differently. Personally, I would rather not dick around on the internet during the work day and not work on the weekend. The other student would rather work at a snails pace and put in more hours.
I think that if I have kids, I will be even more efficient during the day, since I know that my time is even more limited.
A lot of this work-life balance thing is observed, measured, and quantified in terms of hours in (or out) of the lab. Since general scientific success might be measured by other parameters (publication records?) for which data points are somewhat few and far between on the scale of day-to-day, it is only natural for our PIs to measure our work ethic and (perhaps inappropriately) our commitment to our project, our lab, our career, and science in general by other means (i.e., hours that our butts spend in the lab).
But as MXX very accurately points out, hours in do not always equal results out. I myself go through peaks of multi-task-like-a-maniac and troughs of faff-around-on-the-internet. And you know what I realized recently? The troughs correspond to when GrAdvisor is in town, and the peaks to when he is traveling. Why? At first glance it doesn't make any sense. He doesn't spend a lot of time in the lab so it's not like he's hovering over my shoulder or distracting me from my work. How is it that his presence in the office down the hall impedes my efficiency?
The reason is that regardless of how efficient I have been during the week, he expects to see me in on the weekends. As MXX pointed out, multi-tasking-like-a-mad-woman is not a sustainable level of activity/efficiency 6-7 days/week. So if I have to come in 6-7 days/week to pacify GrAdvisor, my efficiency takes a major hit. I get tired! And so I spend a lot of my hours in the lab faffing around on the internet when that time could be better spent working. But it doesn't stop there. When I am not being very efficient, I get depressed about my progress (because I am faffing around when I should be setting up more experiments), and general malaise sets in. I get a nasty case of Imposter Syndrome because things are not progressing as I know that they should and I beat myself up for not being a better scientist. It's kind of exhausting -- by 6pm I feel tired and go home even if just another hour could mean another experiment that runs overnight...but since I feel like my effort (or rather hours) applied do not yield results, what's the point? And then I lose motivation to set anything up because it's all going to fail anyway, right? This is not balance.
When GrAdvisor is out of town, I don't have to show up on the weekends to satisfy his accounting of my commitment to my job. As a result I feel free to take the weekends off, and knowing that I will do so motivates me to be much more efficient during the regular week so that I will not feel guilty about having two whole days away from the lab. Because of my somewhat bipolar approach, I find that I want to work longer hours/day when I am multi-tasking-like-a-mad-woman because I am getting SO MUCH DONE! This means that by Friday afternoon I feel that I have earned the weekend off...so I stay home (or go out) and enjoy the other things that I like besides science...and by the time Monday rolls around again I am excited to get back to the lab and see what else I can knock out this week. With this approach I feel that I am more productive in terms of data produced and experiments finished. This is how I know when my work and life are balanced.
In both cases I spend roughly equal amounts of time getting unequal amounts of work done. But my PI tends to measure face-time...did he see me come in on Saturday? If I was being really productive on Friday, why not continue to apply that efficiency on Saturday? If I wasn't all that productive on Friday, why am I not there picking up the slack on Saturday and Sunday?
It's a Catch-22...either way I lose my weekend.
It's a good thing he travels a lot. I couldn't sustain the 6-7 days/week of inefficiency if it happened all the time.
And like MXX, I kind of look forward to the day when I have children and therefore am not expected to do face-time 6-7 days/week...then I will have reason to maintain my super-efficient 5 days/week habit and it will be understood that this is allowed since I will "have a family" in a sense that is very different from the family I have right now.
If Work=Life, then the equation is always balanced
There have been some great discussions going on here, here, and here regarding how to manage or even attempt a work-life balance, what it means exactly and how this applies not only to women/mothers in science, but also their partners, as well as those of us who don't have kids but do have other things that we need to balance.
This is a really important topic and frequently discussed (as it should be!). Often the conclusion is that women have to try to balance their science (or more precisely the time put into it) against their family (also family time). But by balance, what we frequently mean is giving 100% to both (does not compute). Most women who have been through this wringer offer their very individual personal experiences along with the statement that "I try." And really, what more can you ask for? None of us are perfect and none of us can be all things to all people.
Frankly, I don't think that there really is a solution to this conundrum. We will always have several priorities competing for our time and that's that. So maybe we shouldn't be looking for a way to "fix" this whole thing, but a way to make it easier. And we can start by insisting that academia accommodate.
Lots of academic institutions are making an effort to accommodate. Many of them have long way to go still. Sometimes there are insidious attitudes that antagonize this accommodation despite outward signs of support.
My GrAdvisor seems to be outwardly supportive of his people having families although he does not have one of his own (kudos to him!). To give you an example:75% of the men in our lab are married with kids, 50% of the women are married with kids and GrAdvisor has been overall very supportive of everyone. He had no problem with Tiny Post-doc only working afternoons during her second and third trimesters because of her debilitating morning sickness. He let Junior Grad Student pass on his annual month-long data collection trip because his wife was 7 months pregnant and already had two kids to care for. He petitioned (albeit unsuccessfully) allow Post-doc Friend to use the empty office as a pumping room so she wouldn't have to walk 20 minutes across campus to the designated Mothers' Aid Station. He also told PF not to inform the HR people that she would be taking more than the allotted maternity leave to recover from her difficult celivery...that way she continued to be paid in full. He has not yet complained that PF and her husband (also a post-doc in our lab) are working shifts of 6 hours for the next 6 weeks while their childcare arrangements are unavailable.
All in all, he is pretty good about it. Some time ago I expressed my concerns about continuing a career in academic science...I would like to have family someday when the timing is right (is it ever?) but BH and I are not in a big hurry at this point. Even considering this hypothetically is quite terrifying, and I have said so to GrAdvisor. Not being in a position to offer any personal insights himself, he suggested that I speak with another successful scientist and mother in the department if I was having doubts about making it work. I appreciate his suggestion and the fact that he realizes his limitations in advising on this matter. So for the most part, I am impressed with his fairly liberated views on balancing family and work, especially given the fact that he has no first-hand experience upon which to draw.
However, there is a strange and pervasive undercurrent of continued resentment. He has said to me more than once that he "doesn't have a problem" with whichever lab parent it may be working only 8 hour days, because "they have a family that they need to care for and it is important to honor those priorities."
The corollary being that I, childless as I am, should not feel as if 8 hour days are enough because there is obviously not anything more important in my life than my science.
Hmmm...so if I go and get myself knocked up, then I can have a life outside the lab?
What I don't think he realizes is that getting to a point where you want to have children with someone requires an investment of time and energy and emotion too...or perhaps he does realize this and would prefer to nip such a time-sucking endeavor in the bud?
Axiom 1: It is OK to make compromises if you have children, but there is no reason to have other priorities in your life unless they are kids.
Corollary: If you don't have "a family" (the defining feature being children -- regular-sized people don't count like kids do) then you must be available to work during every waking hour because the other people in your life do not require your attention for survival.
The other thing I have noticed is that he does treat mothers and fathers differently with respect to their "balance" problems. I am not sure that this is really about gender roles. Rather, I think that it has to do with a fundamental difference in the way that the mothers and fathers in our lab present themselves and their competing commitments.
Each January, GrAdvisor meets with each of us for a goal-setting meeting, in which we review our goals from the previous year, which ones were met, which ones were not (and why), and then set new goals for the coming year.
Post-doc friend (who is a very talented, accomplished, productive and hard-working scientist) met with GrAdvisor and mentioned that she had not quite completed one of the goals she had set in the last year. She said that she had not realized when she set those goals how much time her new daughter was going to require and that the addition of this demand on her time had caused her to re-prioritize her goals so that she could finish them in a more realistic time frame given the change in her situation. GrAdvisor's response was that she should not use her child as an excuse for decreased productivity.
Grrrrr.
PF was not using her child as an excuse. She was just stating the facts so that she could identify where the conflict was and arrive at a realistic solution.
Interestingly, PF's husband (also a post-doc in our lab if you recall) also did not meet one of his goals from the previous year...but he didn't say anything about their kid. He just proposed a new time frame for completing said goal...and everything was golden.
Same solution, different presentation, different reaction.
I think that the primary issue at work in this differential treatment is the difference in the way that PF and her husband present the problem to GrAdvisor. PF mentioned that her daughter required more time than she had anticipated (i.e., she "blamed it on the kid"), while PFH made no acknowledgment that the unmet goal was a problem...he just proposed a new time frame as if there were no extraneous reason for his "decreased productivity".
Now, PF was livid (as she had every right to be) but not for the reason you might think. Sure she was mad that she was chastised and her husband was not over the same compromises they were both making. But what she was really mad about was that GrAdvisor couldn't or wouldn't see that her time is not cleanly separated into "lab time" and "kid time". When the kid wakes up sick and it takes a little longer to get her ready and dropped off at grandma's and this means getting stuck in commuter traffic rather than missing rush hour, she doesn't get that time back. From PF's point of view, her day is a 24 hour continuum and an hour lost in traffic is not an hour that can be snatched back at the end of the day to get that last experiment set up before leaving - she has a sick kid to pick up and a trip to the pharmacy before it closes which means leaving early enough to avoid getting stuck in rush hour traffic on the way home.
PFH tends to view his time differently. There is "lab time". There is "kid time". There is "golf time". These exist in parallel but distinct universes. Given this worldview, it is perhaps no surprise that PF often gripes about her husband's seeming inability to do the mental arithmetic that allows for the following realization: mowing the lawn (L) and taking kid to the zoo (Z) and getting in 18 holes (G) cannot all happen in the same day when L + Z + G > 24 hours. He doesn't see these things as impinging upon one another. [Edit: this is not to say that he is shirking his child-rearing duties...just that when planning how he will use his time, he seems to forget that time from categories L, Z, and G are necessarily related in that you can't do all at once, so doing one might mean not doing another in any given day. I'm sure that when he thinks about this he realizes that this is true, but it doesn't always seem to come into play in the planning stage. For this reason I suspect that it (the synthesis rather than compartmentalization of one's time) doesn't always come into play in the evaluation stage either...or maybe he deliberately leaves out this info when discussing goals with GrAdvisor because he is clever enough to realize that GrAdvisor is far more inclined to compartmentalize people's time rather than understand that many demands can impinge upon the same finite number of hours.]
I speculate that GrAdvisor also possesses this extraordinary ability to so thoroughly compartmentalize demands on his time that he cannot see multiple demands at once. Which is why PFH didn't get slapped on the wrist -- the kid exists in a different compartment, one distinct from the lab, so there is no way that the increased responsibility and time required for child-rearing could have been the cause of PFH's failure to meet his goal. Therefore, the assumption is that PFH was so busy with other goals (which he met) that he didn't have time to finish the first goal. It's OK to borrow lab time from lab time, but not kid time from lab time.
Axiom 2: "Life Hours" cannot cut into "Work Hours" if they exist in parallel but distinct universes.
Corollary: Never acknowledge that you have other priorities outside the lab and then no one will have any reason to call you out on letting your lab hours slip.
Finally, GrAdvisor has a hard time understanding that there are other priorities in people's lives. Families sure, but some of us (including those with kids) also have hobbies, friends, relationships, pets, vacations, sports, and myriad other things that add to our quality of life...and this added quality makes us happier and therefore more productive. GrAdvisor on the other hand, is pretty single-minded. As far as I know he doesn't have any hobbies outside of his science -- I can't imagine that he'd have time since he is in the office every waking hour that he is not traveling around giving invited talks. That's his choice and I won't judge it. But it does make it difficult for him to understand how the rest of us need to "balance" our work with whatever else we have in our lives that make us happy. I'm not sure he even gets what this "balance" problem is really about.
Axiom 3: If Work = Life, the equation is always balanced.
Corollary: The way to be a good/successful/serious scientist is to avoid all this pesky "balance" conflict altogether. If you make your work the singular focus of your life *presto!* problem solved!
THIS HAS TO CHANGE!!
Because let's face it folks, we each have only two hands and 24 hours in the day. And if we are being realistic about which priorities in our lives take up the most of our time we cannot go on pretending that time borrowed from Life to "balance" Work (or vice versa) is magical free doesn't-cost-anything time. This is not the subprime housing market. And even if it were, we all know how that turned out.
So there isn't an easy solution...perhaps there isn't any solution. No magic bullet is going to suddenly relieve the tension of all these competing priorities
Academia (starting with individual academics) needs to start acknowledging that we are human. We are not perfect. We cannot do it all. We cannot be all things to all people. We cannot pretend that we do not exist outside of our compartmentalized functions as scientists, mothers, women, whathaveyou. And that's OK. Because most of us are most productive at all of these things when we're happy and not stressed and know that we have a support network to help out when things get rough.
This is a really important topic and frequently discussed (as it should be!). Often the conclusion is that women have to try to balance their science (or more precisely the time put into it) against their family (also family time). But by balance, what we frequently mean is giving 100% to both (does not compute). Most women who have been through this wringer offer their very individual personal experiences along with the statement that "I try." And really, what more can you ask for? None of us are perfect and none of us can be all things to all people.
Frankly, I don't think that there really is a solution to this conundrum. We will always have several priorities competing for our time and that's that. So maybe we shouldn't be looking for a way to "fix" this whole thing, but a way to make it easier. And we can start by insisting that academia accommodate.
Lots of academic institutions are making an effort to accommodate. Many of them have long way to go still. Sometimes there are insidious attitudes that antagonize this accommodation despite outward signs of support.
My GrAdvisor seems to be outwardly supportive of his people having families although he does not have one of his own (kudos to him!). To give you an example:75% of the men in our lab are married with kids, 50% of the women are married with kids and GrAdvisor has been overall very supportive of everyone. He had no problem with Tiny Post-doc only working afternoons during her second and third trimesters because of her debilitating morning sickness. He let Junior Grad Student pass on his annual month-long data collection trip because his wife was 7 months pregnant and already had two kids to care for. He petitioned (albeit unsuccessfully) allow Post-doc Friend to use the empty office as a pumping room so she wouldn't have to walk 20 minutes across campus to the designated Mothers' Aid Station. He also told PF not to inform the HR people that she would be taking more than the allotted maternity leave to recover from her difficult celivery...that way she continued to be paid in full. He has not yet complained that PF and her husband (also a post-doc in our lab) are working shifts of 6 hours for the next 6 weeks while their childcare arrangements are unavailable.
All in all, he is pretty good about it. Some time ago I expressed my concerns about continuing a career in academic science...I would like to have family someday when the timing is right (is it ever?) but BH and I are not in a big hurry at this point. Even considering this hypothetically is quite terrifying, and I have said so to GrAdvisor. Not being in a position to offer any personal insights himself, he suggested that I speak with another successful scientist and mother in the department if I was having doubts about making it work. I appreciate his suggestion and the fact that he realizes his limitations in advising on this matter. So for the most part, I am impressed with his fairly liberated views on balancing family and work, especially given the fact that he has no first-hand experience upon which to draw.
However, there is a strange and pervasive undercurrent of continued resentment. He has said to me more than once that he "doesn't have a problem" with whichever lab parent it may be working only 8 hour days, because "they have a family that they need to care for and it is important to honor those priorities."
The corollary being that I, childless as I am, should not feel as if 8 hour days are enough because there is obviously not anything more important in my life than my science.
Hmmm...so if I go and get myself knocked up, then I can have a life outside the lab?
What I don't think he realizes is that getting to a point where you want to have children with someone requires an investment of time and energy and emotion too...or perhaps he does realize this and would prefer to nip such a time-sucking endeavor in the bud?
Axiom 1: It is OK to make compromises if you have children, but there is no reason to have other priorities in your life unless they are kids.
Corollary: If you don't have "a family" (the defining feature being children -- regular-sized people don't count like kids do) then you must be available to work during every waking hour because the other people in your life do not require your attention for survival.
The other thing I have noticed is that he does treat mothers and fathers differently with respect to their "balance" problems. I am not sure that this is really about gender roles. Rather, I think that it has to do with a fundamental difference in the way that the mothers and fathers in our lab present themselves and their competing commitments.
Each January, GrAdvisor meets with each of us for a goal-setting meeting, in which we review our goals from the previous year, which ones were met, which ones were not (and why), and then set new goals for the coming year.
Post-doc friend (who is a very talented, accomplished, productive and hard-working scientist) met with GrAdvisor and mentioned that she had not quite completed one of the goals she had set in the last year. She said that she had not realized when she set those goals how much time her new daughter was going to require and that the addition of this demand on her time had caused her to re-prioritize her goals so that she could finish them in a more realistic time frame given the change in her situation. GrAdvisor's response was that she should not use her child as an excuse for decreased productivity.
Grrrrr.
PF was not using her child as an excuse. She was just stating the facts so that she could identify where the conflict was and arrive at a realistic solution.
Interestingly, PF's husband (also a post-doc in our lab if you recall) also did not meet one of his goals from the previous year...but he didn't say anything about their kid. He just proposed a new time frame for completing said goal...and everything was golden.
Same solution, different presentation, different reaction.
I think that the primary issue at work in this differential treatment is the difference in the way that PF and her husband present the problem to GrAdvisor. PF mentioned that her daughter required more time than she had anticipated (i.e., she "blamed it on the kid"), while PFH made no acknowledgment that the unmet goal was a problem...he just proposed a new time frame as if there were no extraneous reason for his "decreased productivity".
Now, PF was livid (as she had every right to be) but not for the reason you might think. Sure she was mad that she was chastised and her husband was not over the same compromises they were both making. But what she was really mad about was that GrAdvisor couldn't or wouldn't see that her time is not cleanly separated into "lab time" and "kid time". When the kid wakes up sick and it takes a little longer to get her ready and dropped off at grandma's and this means getting stuck in commuter traffic rather than missing rush hour, she doesn't get that time back. From PF's point of view, her day is a 24 hour continuum and an hour lost in traffic is not an hour that can be snatched back at the end of the day to get that last experiment set up before leaving - she has a sick kid to pick up and a trip to the pharmacy before it closes which means leaving early enough to avoid getting stuck in rush hour traffic on the way home.
PFH tends to view his time differently. There is "lab time". There is "kid time". There is "golf time". These exist in parallel but distinct universes. Given this worldview, it is perhaps no surprise that PF often gripes about her husband's seeming inability to do the mental arithmetic that allows for the following realization: mowing the lawn (L) and taking kid to the zoo (Z) and getting in 18 holes (G) cannot all happen in the same day when L + Z + G > 24 hours. He doesn't see these things as impinging upon one another. [Edit: this is not to say that he is shirking his child-rearing duties...just that when planning how he will use his time, he seems to forget that time from categories L, Z, and G are necessarily related in that you can't do all at once, so doing one might mean not doing another in any given day. I'm sure that when he thinks about this he realizes that this is true, but it doesn't always seem to come into play in the planning stage. For this reason I suspect that it (the synthesis rather than compartmentalization of one's time) doesn't always come into play in the evaluation stage either...or maybe he deliberately leaves out this info when discussing goals with GrAdvisor because he is clever enough to realize that GrAdvisor is far more inclined to compartmentalize people's time rather than understand that many demands can impinge upon the same finite number of hours.]
I speculate that GrAdvisor also possesses this extraordinary ability to so thoroughly compartmentalize demands on his time that he cannot see multiple demands at once. Which is why PFH didn't get slapped on the wrist -- the kid exists in a different compartment, one distinct from the lab, so there is no way that the increased responsibility and time required for child-rearing could have been the cause of PFH's failure to meet his goal. Therefore, the assumption is that PFH was so busy with other goals (which he met) that he didn't have time to finish the first goal. It's OK to borrow lab time from lab time, but not kid time from lab time.
Axiom 2: "Life Hours" cannot cut into "Work Hours" if they exist in parallel but distinct universes.
Corollary: Never acknowledge that you have other priorities outside the lab and then no one will have any reason to call you out on letting your lab hours slip.
Finally, GrAdvisor has a hard time understanding that there are other priorities in people's lives. Families sure, but some of us (including those with kids) also have hobbies, friends, relationships, pets, vacations, sports, and myriad other things that add to our quality of life...and this added quality makes us happier and therefore more productive. GrAdvisor on the other hand, is pretty single-minded. As far as I know he doesn't have any hobbies outside of his science -- I can't imagine that he'd have time since he is in the office every waking hour that he is not traveling around giving invited talks. That's his choice and I won't judge it. But it does make it difficult for him to understand how the rest of us need to "balance" our work with whatever else we have in our lives that make us happy. I'm not sure he even gets what this "balance" problem is really about.
Axiom 3: If Work = Life, the equation is always balanced.
Corollary: The way to be a good/successful/serious scientist is to avoid all this pesky "balance" conflict altogether. If you make your work the singular focus of your life *presto!* problem solved!
THIS HAS TO CHANGE!!
Because let's face it folks, we each have only two hands and 24 hours in the day. And if we are being realistic about which priorities in our lives take up the most of our time we cannot go on pretending that time borrowed from Life to "balance" Work (or vice versa) is magical free doesn't-cost-anything time. This is not the subprime housing market. And even if it were, we all know how that turned out.
So there isn't an easy solution...perhaps there isn't any solution. No magic bullet is going to suddenly relieve the tension of all these competing priorities
Academia (starting with individual academics) needs to start acknowledging that we are human. We are not perfect. We cannot do it all. We cannot be all things to all people. We cannot pretend that we do not exist outside of our compartmentalized functions as scientists, mothers, women, whathaveyou. And that's OK. Because most of us are most productive at all of these things when we're happy and not stressed and know that we have a support network to help out when things get rough.
Monday, November 17, 2008
Science v. Cooking (or, how not to build a project)
I have spent the better part of a day on the ridiculous stupid new progress report format mentioned in the post where I complain about my Hated Data Set. This new format for progress reports (the thing we turn into administration upon completion of twice-yearly thesis committee meetings) requires a written time line for completion of projects/manuscripts way down to the nitty-gritty stuff like a list and description of all the figures in the manuscript I am eventually planning to submit (yes, all of the manuscripts I plan to submit), including an estimated time for completion on the figures that are not yet finished. This actually very helpful for the manuscript that I am nearly finished with (Anticipated Date of Submission: February 2009)...I discovered that 5 of my 9 intended figures are done and 4 are very close (Estimated Time to Completion of each figure: December 2008). This is good news and it makes me look very organized and as if I know what I'm doing.
But WTF am I supposed to write for the "manuscript" that will eventually hopefully come out of Shiny New Project? I have just finished doing some pilot analyses and have discovered that the tools we have really aren't optimal for what we originally intended to do with this technique. There are lots of other cool things to do with this technique (and some not-quite-as-fun workarounds for the original question), many of which I enjoy, but I feel sort of like I do at the end of a long week:
What's for dinner tonight?...hmmm, I don't know...let's look in the fridge...well, I've got an eggplant...what can I make with an eggplant?
Which is a fine way to approach cooking I think but it's not a great way to approach science. You don't look at your tools and say "what can I build with this?"
You develop a question and a hypothesis and say "what tools do I need to answer this?"
To reiterate...I need to include in this time line "details" of ongoing projects that will lead to a second data paper. But I don't know what Second Data Paper is going to be about now. The Shiny New Tool for Shiny New Project is not as good as we thought it would be for answering Shiny New Question. Which means that if we want to use Shiny New Tool as the foundational technique for my next paper...we need to come up with a different question...which is a stupid way to do science.
But GrAdvisor luuurrrrrrrvvvvvssssss Shiny New Tool because it makes Shiny New Data in Sparkly Video format. [I can just see him rubbing his little hands together and licking his lips...ooooohhh, shiny!]. Therefore, he wants to know what we can do with Shiny New Tool. Now, I'm with GrAdvisor on this one -- Sparkly Data are great (and might land a decent paper in better-than-decent journal) plus I really actually like this Shiny New Technique. But I don't have a question upon which to apply it!
Figure 1: Representation of GrAdvisor examining Sparkly New Data.
Gah! If it weren't for stupidly overly specific time line format, I could show some of my preliminary Sparkly Data from Shiny New Technique and my committee would be drooling all over the sexy technique and sparkly data just like GrAdvisor does, then explain how Shiny New Technique is not quite optimal for addressing original hypothesis but that it could be useful for getting at questions A, B, and C. They would be predictably impressed by Sparkly Data, enough to let that nebulous "experimental plan" slide for a bit until I can develop it into something better.
And for the record, I think that requiring a detailed list of figures for a manuscript that is not yet a twinkle in its author's eye is kind of ridiculous. This project is just learning to crawl right now and you want me to tell you what it will look like when it graduates from college? Give me a break!
But thanks to the stupid new format I have to lay it all out on paper, and having done so this project looks like a wild goose chase right now. I'm not excited about the fact that it makes me look as if I have no idea what I'm doing or how to develop a hypothesis-driven project. Ugh.
But WTF am I supposed to write for the "manuscript" that will eventually hopefully come out of Shiny New Project? I have just finished doing some pilot analyses and have discovered that the tools we have really aren't optimal for what we originally intended to do with this technique. There are lots of other cool things to do with this technique (and some not-quite-as-fun workarounds for the original question), many of which I enjoy, but I feel sort of like I do at the end of a long week:
What's for dinner tonight?...hmmm, I don't know...let's look in the fridge...well, I've got an eggplant...what can I make with an eggplant?
Which is a fine way to approach cooking I think but it's not a great way to approach science. You don't look at your tools and say "what can I build with this?"
You develop a question and a hypothesis and say "what tools do I need to answer this?"
To reiterate...I need to include in this time line "details" of ongoing projects that will lead to a second data paper. But I don't know what Second Data Paper is going to be about now. The Shiny New Tool for Shiny New Project is not as good as we thought it would be for answering Shiny New Question. Which means that if we want to use Shiny New Tool as the foundational technique for my next paper...we need to come up with a different question...which is a stupid way to do science.
But GrAdvisor luuurrrrrrrvvvvvssssss Shiny New Tool because it makes Shiny New Data in Sparkly Video format. [I can just see him rubbing his little hands together and licking his lips...ooooohhh, shiny!]. Therefore, he wants to know what we can do with Shiny New Tool. Now, I'm with GrAdvisor on this one -- Sparkly Data are great (and might land a decent paper in better-than-decent journal) plus I really actually like this Shiny New Technique. But I don't have a question upon which to apply it!
Figure 1: Representation of GrAdvisor examining Sparkly New Data.
Gah! If it weren't for stupidly overly specific time line format, I could show some of my preliminary Sparkly Data from Shiny New Technique and my committee would be drooling all over the sexy technique and sparkly data just like GrAdvisor does, then explain how Shiny New Technique is not quite optimal for addressing original hypothesis but that it could be useful for getting at questions A, B, and C. They would be predictably impressed by Sparkly Data, enough to let that nebulous "experimental plan" slide for a bit until I can develop it into something better.
And for the record, I think that requiring a detailed list of figures for a manuscript that is not yet a twinkle in its author's eye is kind of ridiculous. This project is just learning to crawl right now and you want me to tell you what it will look like when it graduates from college? Give me a break!
But thanks to the stupid new format I have to lay it all out on paper, and having done so this project looks like a wild goose chase right now. I'm not excited about the fact that it makes me look as if I have no idea what I'm doing or how to develop a hypothesis-driven project. Ugh.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Popcorn for PhizzleDizzle
PhizzleDizzle "lost her junk" so to speak over my popcorn recipe listed as a favorite snack in the 5 Things Meme.
I just made me some (and yes, it was insane!) so I thought I'd post the recipe while I'm thinking about it so PhizzleDizzle (and whoever else thinks they're crazy enough) can partake in the madness.
I will not be posting pretty pictures of the process because a) it's popcorn after all -- you know what it looks like, and b) my digital camera gave up the ghost about 5 years ago and I am too cheap/broke to replace it so I shoot 35mm...which doesn't lend itself well to this medium.
Ingredients:
I just made me some (and yes, it was insane!) so I thought I'd post the recipe while I'm thinking about it so PhizzleDizzle (and whoever else thinks they're crazy enough) can partake in the madness.
I will not be posting pretty pictures of the process because a) it's popcorn after all -- you know what it looks like, and b) my digital camera gave up the ghost about 5 years ago and I am too cheap/broke to replace it so I shoot 35mm...which doesn't lend itself well to this medium.
Ingredients:
- Cooking oil - I use extra virgin olive oil because this is what I keep in large quantities in my kitchen. If you choose to go this route, keep in mind that the smoke point for olive oil is very close to the temperature at which the corn pops, so you must be quick about putting your kernels in as soon as it's hot enough - no faffing around! If you don't want to worry about this, use some other kind of oil, the variety really isn't that important.
- Popping corn - I prefer a variety called "Black Jewel" because it's pretty -- the kernels really are black in color -- and because the hulls are pretty thin so you can also eat the half-popped stuff in the bottom of the pan without breaking your teeth. Trust me, you'll want to.
- Brewer's yeast - or something called "nutritional yeast"...if there's a difference I can't tell you what it is. You can get it in bulk at any health food store. It's yellow and flaky and can be stored in a sealed dry container pretty much indefinitely. Pelletized baker's yeast is NOT a suitable alternative.
- Curry powder
- Dried seaweed flakes - my supermarket was out of this last time I was there so I am currently using some kind of South Asian "seasoning mix" containing sesame seeds, seaweed, miso and ???. It's also good, but not as pretty as the little green flakes.
- Sea salt
- Butter
- Garlic Powder
- Onion powder
- Cider vinegar - alternatives include balsamic vinegar, soy sauce or Worcestershire sauce. Feel free to experiment.
- Any other dried herbs/spices that appeal to you - I've used cayenne (spicy!) with good results, and this most recent batch was made with Spanish hot smoked paprika (expensive, but so worth the difference in just about everything I've used it in).
- Throw 3-4 kernels into a deep soup pan. Pour in just enough oil to cover the bottom of the pan to a depth of one kernel.
- Cover the pan and light burner to high.
- DO NOT LEAVE THE KITCHEN! Listen carefully for your "test kernels" popping. Once they have, pour in enough popcorn to cover bottom of pan in a single confluent monolayer of kernels and replace the lid -- quick! -- before they start popping.
- Shake the pan every 10-15 seconds.
- Remove from heat when you hear a silence of 2-3 seconds between pops.
- Open the pot. Liberally sprinkle popped corn with yeast, curry powder, and seaweed. Also some salt, and whatever other dry herbs and spices you're using.
- Melt some butter in the microwave with a dash of garlic and onion powder. Stir in a splash of cider vinegar, then pour over the popcorn.
- Close the lid and shake it up.
- Go nuts!
Friday, November 14, 2008
5 things meme
Gah! I've been hit with the 5 things meme by JLK. I'm going to do it quick before anyone else tags my blogger friends and I look sad and unpopular when there's no one else to pass it on to.
I think that the rules are thus:
5 things I was doing 10 years ago:
I think that the rules are thus:
- Complete meme and post.
- Email the person who tagged you to let them know it's up.
- Tag 5 others and email/comment to tell them so.
5 things I was doing 10 years ago:
- Looking forward to graduating (from high school).
- Applying to college.
- Trying to qualify for championships in Favorite Equestrian Event.
- Having fraught relationship with high school sweetheart.
- Soldiering through Autumn Sport season with nasty injury.
- Step 2 of Hated Data Set - not sure I'll get to this, but if not, definitely tomorrow.
- Write up draft of ridiculous stupid new progress report format
- Start tying up loose ends of other experiments that should be in my next manuscript (for which I am failing miserably with my InaDWriMo#*%$@whateverthefuck goals thus far)
- Refrain from feeling guilty for not getting more done today -- it's been a rough but productive week
- Stop reading blogs and get busy already!
- [Amendment: Go home before this migraine really starts ripping.]
- Beer
- Popcorn with brewer's yeast, butter, curry powder and dried seaweed....mmmmm!
- Homemade guacamole on just about anything
- Ice cream (which is a killer because I'm lactose intolerant so I will only have it at home and when we don't have company!)
- Fresh fruit and veg...whatever's in season
- Pay off my student loans and DangerDog's surgery.
- Buy a horse and a place to keep it.
- Invest well so that I won't have to work until I'm dead (well at least once the economy can be trusted).
- Renegotiate my job to work part-time so I have time to enjoy horse, dog, Things, BH and the other finer things in life.
- Start up my charter school for globally integrated experiential learning and social justice (that one may require another post to explain)...that, or maybe a vineyard.
- Pacific Northwest
- Tex-Ass
- SoCal
- Italy
- Only 4 for me...unless you count extended research post in Costa Rica for a few months...never had a mailing address so I don't know if that counts.
- Horseback riding instructor
- Halter- and Saddle-breaking young horses for local ranch
- Stream surveyor for the US Geological Survey - CA newts rock my world!
- Theater technician
- Science lab instructor
- [I was going to write "full-time student"...that probably doesn't count]
- The Monktress at Hermitage
- microbiologistxx
- Disgruntled Julie
- Eugenie
- The Bean-mom
Sparkly new data
GrAdvisor's been bugging me for stupendous figures of shiny sparkling new data. Nice to have him interested in what I'm doing for a change. However, I've had a lot on my plate this week and didn't have a lot of free time to spend faffing around converting shiny new data into cool sparkly figures in the midst of processing Hated Data Set.
But it's my week to give lab meeting so I responded to his repeated request for these shiny new data by saying "I haven't finished processing the raw data yet, but I will have it in figure format for lab meeting on Friday". Several times. I was here in the lab until stupidly late last night making sparkly videos so I could wow him this morning. I just gave a knock-out presentation of all my shiny new data at lab meeting...and he wasn't there.
He's giving a talk in some other state! I'm guessing (because he never actually told me) that he wanted sparkly figures of my shiny new data for this talk. Why didn't he just say so? Why didn't he respond to my repeated messages that I will present this info on Friday by saying, "Sorry I won't be there, I will be in Other State giving a talk. If you do have any shiny new data ready to go I would love to present it during my talk in Other State. I am leaving at [blank]."?
Then I could have run around like a headless chicken whipping up cool sparkly figures instead of doing my planned experiments just like I did the day he left for his last talk in Other Country. Perhaps he sensed my annoyance last time at giving me 3 hours notice that he was leaving and that he wanted them in a different format (never mind that the original figures had been sitting, untouched, in his inbox for the past 3 weeks)...and right now.
Grrrr.
Please, just communicate clearly with me! It's not too much to ask I don't think. I cannot read your mind (too bad, because that would make my life exponentially easier) and I cannot know when you'll be out of town/giving a talk unless you tell me. If there is something specific that you want from me just tell me, specifically, what it is. Please show some respect for my time by giving me some advance notice on your deadlines and clearly stating which information is a priority for you so that I can get it to you in a timely manner. Really it's Not. That. Hard.
But it's my week to give lab meeting so I responded to his repeated request for these shiny new data by saying "I haven't finished processing the raw data yet, but I will have it in figure format for lab meeting on Friday". Several times. I was here in the lab until stupidly late last night making sparkly videos so I could wow him this morning. I just gave a knock-out presentation of all my shiny new data at lab meeting...and he wasn't there.
He's giving a talk in some other state! I'm guessing (because he never actually told me) that he wanted sparkly figures of my shiny new data for this talk. Why didn't he just say so? Why didn't he respond to my repeated messages that I will present this info on Friday by saying, "Sorry I won't be there, I will be in Other State giving a talk. If you do have any shiny new data ready to go I would love to present it during my talk in Other State. I am leaving at [blank]."?
Then I could have run around like a headless chicken whipping up cool sparkly figures instead of doing my planned experiments just like I did the day he left for his last talk in Other Country. Perhaps he sensed my annoyance last time at giving me 3 hours notice that he was leaving and that he wanted them in a different format (never mind that the original figures had been sitting, untouched, in his inbox for the past 3 weeks)...and right now.
Grrrr.
Please, just communicate clearly with me! It's not too much to ask I don't think. I cannot read your mind (too bad, because that would make my life exponentially easier) and I cannot know when you'll be out of town/giving a talk unless you tell me. If there is something specific that you want from me just tell me, specifically, what it is. Please show some respect for my time by giving me some advance notice on your deadlines and clearly stating which information is a priority for you so that I can get it to you in a timely manner. Really it's Not. That. Hard.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Crummy Data Set Update
I have completed STEP 1 of processing crummy data set...yep all 70-some-odd samples.
Now all I have to do is:
Committee Meeting = T-10 days and counting.
Now, off to throw together some sparkly movies for lab meeting tomorrow which will hopefully keep GrAdvisor pacified until the end of the month.
Now all I have to do is:
- Finish screening for appropriate parameters to move onto STEP 2 of processing (bad news = many do not fall within these parameters, good news = fewer samples to deal with in next steps).
- Categorize according to experimental group.
- Determine which controls are possible (dependent upon lowest yield sample of each experimental group).
- Complete STEP 2 including possible control methods.
- Recalculate yield from STEP 2.
- Perform STEP 3.
- Cross fingers and hope it gives me a good result, or at the very least, an interpretable result.
- Analyze.
- Weep or rejoice.
- Tie up loose ends on 3 more-or-less finished experiments (estimated time required = 5 days).
- Write up ridiculous stupid new progress report format (ETR = better part of a day).
- Develop coherent experimental plan for shiny new project a.k.a. 3rd chapter of thesis for which I will show shiny new preliminary data in presentation (ETR = 1 day).
- Analyze crummy data set *see above* (ETR = 3-4 days).
- Take care of relatively unimportant crap that GrAdvisor keeps nagging about but really could just as easily wait until after committee meeting (ETR = 1 day).
- Make PowerPoint slides for presentation (ETR = 0.5 days).
Committee Meeting = T-10 days and counting.
Now, off to throw together some sparkly movies for lab meeting tomorrow which will hopefully keep GrAdvisor pacified until the end of the month.
So not looking forward to today...
I think I got home after 10pm last night...not exactly sure. I am sure that I spent nearly 12 hours processing samples from crummy data set yesterday...and I am not yet finished.
I really hate this data set for the following reasons:
I really hate this data set for the following reasons:
- It took me 8 months to generate these samples which is stupidly long considering what they are, but for reasons entirely outside of my control (anyone else experiencing the joys of working with subfertile transgenic animal models?)
- These samples produce extremely low yields after processing, so that many of them are unusable.
- Even when I am done processing them, the analysis of this data set is fraught with perils of all kinds...interpretation of the results is, well, tricky.
- Although there are lots of possible controls, the low yield (see #2) makes it impossible to run all of them so I have to guess as to which potential confounding factor is the most likely and pick the correspondingly appropriate control, and hope that I'm right.
- Often the most likely confounding factor is contamination. Despite all the necessary precautions during processing, this can still be a problem and while I have good controls (see #4) to determine whether samples are indeed contaminated at the final analysis step, this information renders the sample completely useless and there is no foreseeable way to salvage said sample once the analysis has revealed possible contamination (see #3) and I flatly refuse to try to generate yet another round of replicates for these samples (see #1).
- Even if all the processing and analysis goes relatively OK, I'm not sure that this data set will be accepted for publication since the analysis will be fraught (see#3), and I can already imagine reviewers suggesting myriad other methodologies for answering the same question, which would be extremely useful were it not for the fact that the yield is so bad (see #2) that running several methodologies on this data set is just impossible.
- Finally, I have been loathe to finish up with this set because even if everything works beautifully, even if I get sufficient yield, and clear controls, and an obvious result, one possible result from this data set could blow a big hole in the middle of my whole story. Let's hope I get the other possible result, because I would really like to write this up and move on. [I know, I know, I'm a bad scientist -- we should all be unbiased and any result is a good result, blah, blah, blah. Really, people, who do you think you're kidding with that line? There are other ways to salvage this story if I get the undesired result, but it will take a lot longer to finish this project and frankly, I have been working on it for too long already.]
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Sibling Rivalry
DangerDog and the Things generally get along quite well. They don't try to eat his food and he chases the neighborhood bully (big mean orange tomcat) out of the yard so that they can play safely. In the mornings all the fur-people are allowed on the bed for a big snugglepalooza and nobody snaps or barks or claws.
Lately though, Thing 1 & Thing 2 have been trying to claim DangerDog's bed(s) as their own. Although the Things prefer to sleep on our bed with us at night (Thing 2 is happiest when tightly sandwiched between BH and I), this morning I awoke to find Thing 1 sprawled across the folded quilt that is DD's bedroom haunt, and DD looking very uncomfortable on the hardwood floor. He knows they have claws and so is loathe to insist on anything as petty as them staying off his own bed for risk of getting swiped.
We've recently laid down a new bed for DD in the dining room at the dog trainer's suggestion...DD is a little pushy and often in the way so we are teaching him that he has his own place in our high-traffic area and that this is a better place to be than underfoot.
DangerDog likes his new bed, because he gets cookies when he remembers to lie down on it. The Things also like DD's new bed, because it is new, and because it is not theirs. Methinks the Things would like DD's new bed to be the Things' new bed.
To illustrate this point: this morning, while everyone was watching, Thing 1 sauntered over to DD's new dining room bed, popped a squat...and emptied his bladder, all the while looking quite smug.
!!!!!
We were all shocked, not least of all DD. The look on his face said it all: What fuckery is this!?!?
The Things have never been known to use anything but the litter box as their toilet in the many months that we have had them. Puking up their dead cockroaches -- couches and rugs are fair game, but peeing and pooing -- always in the box. Needless to say, Thing 1 got a sufficient shakedown for that indiscretion.
But before we could pick up the bed and throw it in the washer, DD took things into his own paws...he peed on the bed too!! His own bed! DD has never ever ever had an accident in the house except for the time his prostate was bothering him and he couldn't help it (he was SO embarrassed about that).
This, however, was no accident.
He walked over, sniffed the bed, lifted his leg and let loose. And we'd just come inside from his morning potty-mission. It was clearly a big doggy "fuck you" directed at the cats. He was obviously marking his territory (it is his bed after all)...and while I am glad that he's finally standing up to the little rascals, I WILL NOT HAVE A PISSING MATCH (QUITE LITERALLY) IN THE HOUSE!!
DD also got a stern talking to, and claimed he was sorry, but I'm not sure that this will fix it. What to do? Anyone else have any canine-feline subterfuge going on? Help! How do you deal with this!?!?
Lately though, Thing 1 & Thing 2 have been trying to claim DangerDog's bed(s) as their own. Although the Things prefer to sleep on our bed with us at night (Thing 2 is happiest when tightly sandwiched between BH and I), this morning I awoke to find Thing 1 sprawled across the folded quilt that is DD's bedroom haunt, and DD looking very uncomfortable on the hardwood floor. He knows they have claws and so is loathe to insist on anything as petty as them staying off his own bed for risk of getting swiped.
We've recently laid down a new bed for DD in the dining room at the dog trainer's suggestion...DD is a little pushy and often in the way so we are teaching him that he has his own place in our high-traffic area and that this is a better place to be than underfoot.
DangerDog likes his new bed, because he gets cookies when he remembers to lie down on it. The Things also like DD's new bed, because it is new, and because it is not theirs. Methinks the Things would like DD's new bed to be the Things' new bed.
To illustrate this point: this morning, while everyone was watching, Thing 1 sauntered over to DD's new dining room bed, popped a squat...and emptied his bladder, all the while looking quite smug.
!!!!!
We were all shocked, not least of all DD. The look on his face said it all: What fuckery is this!?!?
The Things have never been known to use anything but the litter box as their toilet in the many months that we have had them. Puking up their dead cockroaches -- couches and rugs are fair game, but peeing and pooing -- always in the box. Needless to say, Thing 1 got a sufficient shakedown for that indiscretion.
But before we could pick up the bed and throw it in the washer, DD took things into his own paws...he peed on the bed too!! His own bed! DD has never ever ever had an accident in the house except for the time his prostate was bothering him and he couldn't help it (he was SO embarrassed about that).
This, however, was no accident.
He walked over, sniffed the bed, lifted his leg and let loose. And we'd just come inside from his morning potty-mission. It was clearly a big doggy "fuck you" directed at the cats. He was obviously marking his territory (it is his bed after all)...and while I am glad that he's finally standing up to the little rascals, I WILL NOT HAVE A PISSING MATCH (QUITE LITERALLY) IN THE HOUSE!!
DD also got a stern talking to, and claimed he was sorry, but I'm not sure that this will fix it. What to do? Anyone else have any canine-feline subterfuge going on? Help! How do you deal with this!?!?
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Yes Virginia, there IS a Journal of Negative Results!
Remember how I was bemoaning the lack of appropriate forum for publishing your failed projects (so that no one else has to go down that dismal road)?
I was wrong!
There are at least two:
The Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine
The Journal of Negative Results in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
I am totalling submitting my non-expressing transgenic mice to the biomed one. Who-hoo, publications!
[Update: The bean-mom just pointed out to me that they sell T-shirts! So if you think that this journal is a good idea and you're feeling slightly wealthy, go buy one and make yourself a walking billboard for a sorely needed scientific repository of useful information.]
I was wrong!
There are at least two:
The Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine
The Journal of Negative Results in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology
I am totalling submitting my non-expressing transgenic mice to the biomed one. Who-hoo, publications!
[Update: The bean-mom just pointed out to me that they sell T-shirts! So if you think that this journal is a good idea and you're feeling slightly wealthy, go buy one and make yourself a walking billboard for a sorely needed scientific repository of useful information.]
A total stranger just saved my ass and she doesn't even know it.
Over at FSP there is a discussion going on as to whether or not students should be required to go to seminars…as a student I don’t have a lot of sway in this decision but the general rule of thumb here is that:
- Students are required to attend seminars in series that GrAdvisor calls “compulsory.” These include:
- weekly invited speakers from outside the institution
- monthly faculty seminar
- bi-weekly sub-sub-field research forum
- weekly departmental journal club
- weekly sub-field group meeting with rotating presentations by students/post-docs
- weekly lab meeting
- When students are slow to produce data, GrAdvisor will say something along the lines of, “I’ve seen you at a lot of seminars lately….” As if to imply that students are using seminars to avoid benchwork.
I am not sure he realizes what mixed messages this sends. Some of these seminars are really good and there is a lot to be learned and so the time away from the bench is well-spent. Not all of these seminars are good/useful, but all of them are “compulsory”…which would imply that we should feel compelled to attend them even if they’re crap. But if he sees us there when data are slow, we should no longer feel compelled to attend? You just can’t win with this system.
On top of this conundrum, some of these seminars are very poorly organized, much to my frustration (and today, relief).
The speaker schedule for the weekly sub-field group meeting (there are two speakers each week) was sent out several months ago. This meeting is held on Tuesday, but the dates on the schedule were actually Thursdays…oh well, I knew what they meant, so I marked on my calendar the Tuesday that fell in the same week as the Thursday on which I was “scheduled” to speak. (Which, for the record is next Tuesday, one week before my committee meeting. Why is it always right next to my committee meeting?).
A short time later a corrected schedule was sent around with the dates corrected to Tuesdays. I checked it against my calendar – yep, still next week.
A short time after that a third schedule was sent around with Thursdays corrected to Tuesday AND some, but not all, of the speakers rearranged. Apparently, I was one of those speakers, and according to the third schedule I was supposed to speak today. Nowhere, in any of the subsequent schedules, nor the emails in which they were distributed, was it suggested that the schedule had fundamentally changed aside from the Thursday-Tuesday thing. So I, of course, didn’t read the third schedule too carefully since it appeared almost identical to the second corrected schedule. So I didn’t know I was supposed to speak today (according to the third schedule) until I sat down in the audience and LabFriend asked, “where’s your computer?”
AA: What? I’m not talking until next week.
LF: You’re on the schedule for today.
AA: Yeah, very funny.
Eeeek!
Fortunately, someone else (a complete stranger to me – it’s a big group) was also confused by the multiple schedules because she showed up ready to present today, as she should have according to the first several schedules (as did the other guy who really was supposed to talk today according to all three schedules), and the powers that be were none the wiser. So I guess I will be talking next month in Stranger’s place (on the third schedule)…thanks Stranger, for saving my ass. And to whoever is in charge of "organizing" this debacle – you can rot!
Now if only we could all agree on the changes to our lab meeting schedule. I swear it shouldn’t be this complicated.
Well this is curious....
I just received a phone call from BigResearchU's parking department to inform me that I have left my motorcycle parked with the keys in it and the lights on.
Funny thing is, I don't own a motorcycle.
If I did however, it would be this one:
Figure 1: AA's imaginary motorcycle. This motorcycle is a big part of the reason AA developed an infatuation with Gael Garcia Bernal/young Che Guevara.
I think I know what happened though...Nasty-Ex has a motorcycle, and it used to be that one could add a 24-hour motorcycle pass to any after-hours garage parking pass for no extra cost...so we used to split the total cost of the parking contract. When we went our separate ways, I of course removed him from all formerly-communal accounts (BlockBuster, cell phone, and parking pass). But since the motorcycle pass is just a sticker on the bike and not a garage access card, he could conceivably continue to use it so long as no one actually ran the number to make sure it's still valid.
And it seems that this is exactly what he's done. The nice parking attendants noticed his bike parked with the keys in it and chased down his expired pass to my number, as a courtesy, to inform me that my bike's lights were on.
What cheek! I haven't spoken to this twit in almost 2 years and he is still using the expired parking pass from my contract (which I pay for)! Unbelievable!
I am tempted to go out and move the bike to a different lot in retribution for his unceasing free-loading...but I don't know where it is parked. Balls.
So instead I emailed the schmuck to let him know that my bike's lights are on and that his parking pass is expired.
I almost hope someone else drives off with it in the meantime...and I'd better not get slapped with a fee for using an expired pass...you know, seeing as it's "my" bike and my parking contract.
Funny thing is, I don't own a motorcycle.
If I did however, it would be this one:
Figure 1: AA's imaginary motorcycle. This motorcycle is a big part of the reason AA developed an infatuation with Gael Garcia Bernal/young Che Guevara.I think I know what happened though...Nasty-Ex has a motorcycle, and it used to be that one could add a 24-hour motorcycle pass to any after-hours garage parking pass for no extra cost...so we used to split the total cost of the parking contract. When we went our separate ways, I of course removed him from all formerly-communal accounts (BlockBuster, cell phone, and parking pass). But since the motorcycle pass is just a sticker on the bike and not a garage access card, he could conceivably continue to use it so long as no one actually ran the number to make sure it's still valid.
And it seems that this is exactly what he's done. The nice parking attendants noticed his bike parked with the keys in it and chased down his expired pass to my number, as a courtesy, to inform me that my bike's lights were on.
What cheek! I haven't spoken to this twit in almost 2 years and he is still using the expired parking pass from my contract (which I pay for)! Unbelievable!
I am tempted to go out and move the bike to a different lot in retribution for his unceasing free-loading...but I don't know where it is parked. Balls.
So instead I emailed the schmuck to let him know that my bike's lights are on and that his parking pass is expired.
I almost hope someone else drives off with it in the meantime...and I'd better not get slapped with a fee for using an expired pass...you know, seeing as it's "my" bike and my parking contract.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Non-productivity and mental meltdown
Today started out pretty good. I had a whole uninterrupted Monday in which to process my ass-load of samples and I expected it to take the whole day. Which is why I came in yesterday to round up all the necessary reagents from various kits -- so I wouldn't have to waste precious processing time to do that today.
So I went to get started this morning and found that the reagents I located yesterday were in fact just empty tubes. Who the hell uses up a reagent and puts the empty tube back in the freezer...and furthermore, doesn't bother to order a replacement!?!?! We have back-up stocks of at least one of these reagents (for this express purpose) and guess what? Also empty except for one tube that contains enough to process about 7 of my 48 samples. Grrrrrrr.
So I am not processing precious samples until the replacement reagents arrive and I am really fucking pissed about this. I need this data set for my committee meeting in a few weeks and if I had been able to process today, I would have time to re-run my samples if something went wrong the first time. As it stands I will have to cross my fingers and hope to the Flying Spaghetti Monster that it works the first time (whenever I can get my hands on some reagent). I am also really fucking pissed at myself for not getting these samples done sooner...there always seems to be something else that needs doing right now, and so they've languishing in the freezer waiting for me to find a convenient time to deal with them.
I also discovered that the race I was considering running in Sort-of Nearby City in a couple of weeks is in fact scheduled for this coming weekend. I wrote it in the wrong box on my calendar. I am usually not this flaky. While the "earlier" race day alleviates the scheduling conflict against my committee meeting, my training has really been in the crapper for the last couple of months due to recurrent shin splints, too much work/stress, and general laziness/apathy. With a couple of weeks I could whip myself back into shape for this, but this weekend? Ain't happenin'.
So I'll be out the non-refundable race entry...but at least I won't have to pay for the gas/hotel that we really can't afford right now. BH is bummed because he was really looking forward to getting out of town and he really likes Sort-of Nearby City (I've never been). We'll have to plan on another trip when we've got the dough (and I've got the legs for the race).
I'm feeling really frustrated -- partly over the missing reagents and my lab mates' inconsiderate behavior regarding this stuff, but also over my general discombobulation lately - how did I put that race on the wrong date in my calendar? And what's wrong with me that I can't get my butt out the door regularly for my training runs now that the weather here is finally tolerable? ARRRGH! All of this came together at once and I went to hide in ladies' room in case I burst into tears or screamed at the top of my lungs -- I felt remarkably close to doing both at once. This kind of stuff usually doesn't get me down to this extent. Irritating? Yes. Meltdown inducing? Not even close.
But I really just wanted to throw a tantrum because nothing is going my way today. That post I put up a couple days ago regarding not being a victim of circumstance, in which I was all mature and professional? *Snark*. It's my blog and my safe place to vent so will have my tantrums here instead of in the lab and therefore I will have no excuse to actually walk around all day feeling like a victim of circumstance.
So. Back to my tantrum.
From wiki:
Supplemental Movie 1: Re-enactment of the "irrational fit" that I would have liked to have thrown today. I didn't.
I think I need a vacation.
But first, committee meeting.
So I went to get started this morning and found that the reagents I located yesterday were in fact just empty tubes. Who the hell uses up a reagent and puts the empty tube back in the freezer...and furthermore, doesn't bother to order a replacement!?!?! We have back-up stocks of at least one of these reagents (for this express purpose) and guess what? Also empty except for one tube that contains enough to process about 7 of my 48 samples. Grrrrrrr.
So I am not processing precious samples until the replacement reagents arrive and I am really fucking pissed about this. I need this data set for my committee meeting in a few weeks and if I had been able to process today, I would have time to re-run my samples if something went wrong the first time. As it stands I will have to cross my fingers and hope to the Flying Spaghetti Monster that it works the first time (whenever I can get my hands on some reagent). I am also really fucking pissed at myself for not getting these samples done sooner...there always seems to be something else that needs doing right now, and so they've languishing in the freezer waiting for me to find a convenient time to deal with them.
I also discovered that the race I was considering running in Sort-of Nearby City in a couple of weeks is in fact scheduled for this coming weekend. I wrote it in the wrong box on my calendar. I am usually not this flaky. While the "earlier" race day alleviates the scheduling conflict against my committee meeting, my training has really been in the crapper for the last couple of months due to recurrent shin splints, too much work/stress, and general laziness/apathy. With a couple of weeks I could whip myself back into shape for this, but this weekend? Ain't happenin'.
So I'll be out the non-refundable race entry...but at least I won't have to pay for the gas/hotel that we really can't afford right now. BH is bummed because he was really looking forward to getting out of town and he really likes Sort-of Nearby City (I've never been). We'll have to plan on another trip when we've got the dough (and I've got the legs for the race).
I'm feeling really frustrated -- partly over the missing reagents and my lab mates' inconsiderate behavior regarding this stuff, but also over my general discombobulation lately - how did I put that race on the wrong date in my calendar? And what's wrong with me that I can't get my butt out the door regularly for my training runs now that the weather here is finally tolerable? ARRRGH! All of this came together at once and I went to hide in ladies' room in case I burst into tears or screamed at the top of my lungs -- I felt remarkably close to doing both at once. This kind of stuff usually doesn't get me down to this extent. Irritating? Yes. Meltdown inducing? Not even close.
But I really just wanted to throw a tantrum because nothing is going my way today. That post I put up a couple days ago regarding not being a victim of circumstance, in which I was all mature and professional? *Snark*. It's my blog and my safe place to vent so will have my tantrums here instead of in the lab and therefore I will have no excuse to actually walk around all day feeling like a victim of circumstance.
So. Back to my tantrum.
From wiki:
A tantrum is an emotional outburst of ill humor or a fit of bad temper wherein the higher brain functions are unable to stop the emotional expression of the lower (emotional and physical) brain functions. It can be categorized by an irrational fit of crying, screaming, defiance, and a resistance to every attempt at pacification in which even physical control is lost. The person may not stand or sit on their own. Even when the "goal" of the person is met, he or she is not calmed.
Supplemental Movie 1: Re-enactment of the "irrational fit" that I would have liked to have thrown today. I didn't.
I think I need a vacation.
But first, committee meeting.
Science isn't just for boys (or tomboys)
Girly-girls are too girly to be taken seriously as intellectuals and scientists...and other women think so too. Seriously!?!?!? Are we not past that yet people?
Sorry, I'll back up a minute...Dr. Isis is taking a lot of flak for being a girly-scientist. Seems that there are a few women out there who really don't like her promoting a feminine caricature because apparently this threatens their validity as scientists. Seriously!?!?! I call bullshit on all these people. I myself am not a particularly girly girl (I'm much more the jeans and t-shirt, camping on the weekends type), but I do see my more girly colleagues struggle to be taken seriously as scientists. I have refrained on several occasions from advising friends to not speak in a high-pitched voice or wear such youthful effeminate clothes when presenting their research. My first impulse is to say these things because I know that the perception of these very competent female scientists is sometimes compromised in the eyes of others due to these stereotypes. But it shouldn't be, so I shut my mouth and all those people who weren't expecting cute little grad student in a skirt to blow their narrow little minds with some kick-ass science - I say to you, prepare for a paradigm shift cuz ya got one coming to ya.
I was not prepared to see such blatant woman-bashing from another woman. Renee says in the comments:
Wowzers. I hate people who are not like me. I tried to respond to this but I am so angry at this unabashed display of hate toward women (not to mention black people), that I am incapable of composing a rational response at the moment. Maybe later when I've calmed down. In the meantime, ScientistMother says it best.
Sorry, I'll back up a minute...Dr. Isis is taking a lot of flak for being a girly-scientist. Seems that there are a few women out there who really don't like her promoting a feminine caricature because apparently this threatens their validity as scientists. Seriously!?!?! I call bullshit on all these people. I myself am not a particularly girly girl (I'm much more the jeans and t-shirt, camping on the weekends type), but I do see my more girly colleagues struggle to be taken seriously as scientists. I have refrained on several occasions from advising friends to not speak in a high-pitched voice or wear such youthful effeminate clothes when presenting their research. My first impulse is to say these things because I know that the perception of these very competent female scientists is sometimes compromised in the eyes of others due to these stereotypes. But it shouldn't be, so I shut my mouth and all those people who weren't expecting cute little grad student in a skirt to blow their narrow little minds with some kick-ass science - I say to you, prepare for a paradigm shift cuz ya got one coming to ya.
I was not prepared to see such blatant woman-bashing from another woman. Renee says in the comments:
But here's the thing; I don't actually hate women- I hate female culture. And I think this is what most people mean when they say that they hate this or that group.
There are male and female cultures. There are black cultures. There are Hispanic cultures. I don't like most black people not because of their skin color, but because I don't like hip-hop and dancing. I don't like most women because I don't like shopping and romantic comedies. I do have female and black friends, however, because they don't belong to those cultures; they belong to my culture, which involves sci-fi, anime, and board games.
Simply put, adding female culture to your blog alienates people who don't belong to/appreciate that culture. Obviously it's a matter of taste.
Should that reflect on you as a person/scientist? Honestly? I think female culture also looks down on math and science, much the way that black culture does. The kind of girls I went to high school with that would post pictures of shoes on their blogs definitely looked down on me, that's for sure.
So if you add female culture to a post, for me, it makes me take you less seriously, simply because of that association. Sorry. Deal. For the most part, the judgment is accurate (people use top-down processing for a reason; it's effective). If you add geek culture to a post, I'm 10x more likely to take you seriously- partially because geeks have a reputation for being smart, and partially because I am one.
Wowzers. I hate people who are not like me. I tried to respond to this but I am so angry at this unabashed display of hate toward women (not to mention black people), that I am incapable of composing a rational response at the moment. Maybe later when I've calmed down. In the meantime, ScientistMother says it best.
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Negative results
Over at The Bean Chronicles, The Bean-mom has a nice post on a positive comment from a reviewer commending the authors of a paper on including data that don't necessarily support the authors' conclusions. I have commented as follows:
The authors are to be commended...if science is about figuring it out (rather than making it up) as we go along then it's important to include stuff that doesn't make any sense when communicating finds...then someone else might see how it fits or changes the working model and *presto* get it figured out. Unfortunately that only works if the stuff that doesn't make sense ends up in the publication so other people can see it...but it won't get published with stuff that the authors can't explain...I think that this is a major flaw in the way we report our findings.
To which The Bean-mom suggests perhaps an open-access type forum where researchers can share their negative or inexplicable results freely. I think that this is a really interesting proposition that seems to have been tossed around within the scientific community a bit but has never really taken off.
As far as a solution, I'm not sure that open-access to pre-peer-reviewed publishable data is ever going to catch on. There's no control over whether or not someone will use those freely shared data to scoop the original investigator, and so much hangs on the publication record.
I've heard rumors that there is (once was?) a Journal of Negative Results. Perhaps this is an urban myth? Whatever the case may be, I think that this is a great idea. Peer-reviewed toward ensuring that it was good science to begin with rather than poorly controlled experiments from which we learn nothing. But those mice without phenotypes would need not languish in obscurity and other investigators would need not waste their time reproducing these road-to-nowhere kinds of projects.
The trouble is:
Not that I'm saying we shouldn't encourage this - we should! I just hope that maybe there are some other good ideas out there that would provide some incentive for scientists to include all their results so that the entire community can get the whole picture.
The authors are to be commended...if science is about figuring it out (rather than making it up) as we go along then it's important to include stuff that doesn't make any sense when communicating finds...then someone else might see how it fits or changes the working model and *presto* get it figured out. Unfortunately that only works if the stuff that doesn't make sense ends up in the publication so other people can see it...but it won't get published with stuff that the authors can't explain...I think that this is a major flaw in the way we report our findings.
To which The Bean-mom suggests perhaps an open-access type forum where researchers can share their negative or inexplicable results freely. I think that this is a really interesting proposition that seems to have been tossed around within the scientific community a bit but has never really taken off.
As far as a solution, I'm not sure that open-access to pre-peer-reviewed publishable data is ever going to catch on. There's no control over whether or not someone will use those freely shared data to scoop the original investigator, and so much hangs on the publication record.
I've heard rumors that there is (once was?) a Journal of Negative Results. Perhaps this is an urban myth? Whatever the case may be, I think that this is a great idea. Peer-reviewed toward ensuring that it was good science to begin with rather than poorly controlled experiments from which we learn nothing. But those mice without phenotypes would need not languish in obscurity and other investigators would need not waste their time reproducing these road-to-nowhere kinds of projects.
The trouble is:
- Who wants to be the editor of such a journal? You could be buried under a mountain of submissions, most of which are not terribly interesting in terms of moving science forward, although they would do much toward NOT moving it sideways.
- Who wants to publish in such a journal? Preparing a manuscript for publication is not a small amount of work, especially for something that didn't work out into a nice story for a positive-result type of journal. Not to mention the fact that if we all published all of our negative results in journal form, the "failed" research on our CVs might start to overwhelm the interesting stories.
- At the end of the day the sharing of such information can be seen as being entirely altruistic - you've learned what you can from your negative results already. Writing them up and publishing them will assist other scientists, but probably doesn't do anything more for you. If everyone does it then everyone benefits...but I suspect that there is not sufficient energy of activation to overcome this problem.
Not that I'm saying we shouldn't encourage this - we should! I just hope that maybe there are some other good ideas out there that would provide some incentive for scientists to include all their results so that the entire community can get the whole picture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
