I have had an exceedingly bright undergrad working in my lab over the summer. This week is her last before heading off to her home institution. Today she told me she didn't want to leave. She wants to stay and try to figure out what the enigmatic protein she's been working with really does.
Yes!!!!!!!!!! (Odyssey pumps fist in air)
Of course, she'll head back to her home at the end of the week. Maybe she'll come back next summer...
Showing posts with label research. Show all posts
Showing posts with label research. Show all posts
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
Monday, August 02, 2010
What? But... Hang on a sec...
I go away on vacation (hmmmmm, vacation.... sun, beer, sand, beer, waves, beer, seafood, beer and beer...) and all hell breaks loose.
Well, maybe not hell. But a whole new blog collective just... appeared. Scientopia. And many of my favorite science bloggy types have moved there. I was going to list them but Bora over at A Blog Around the Clock has already done so here.
Tres cool.
Well, maybe not hell. But a whole new blog collective just... appeared. Scientopia. And many of my favorite science bloggy types have moved there. I was going to list them but Bora over at A Blog Around the Clock has already done so here.
Tres cool.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
Disordered ramblings
Of late I've become interested in so-called intrinsically disordered proteins (IDP's).* These are proteins that contain one or more "significant" regions of sequence that are unstructured. "Significant" can range from perhaps ten or so residues, up to the entire protein. There are experimental data suggesting that the disordered regions in some of these are vital for function. It is generally thought that disordered regions important for function might undergo a folding reaction when bound by another protein, or a nucleic acid, or even a small molecule.
I'm interested in IDP's** because two of my favorite proteins have disordered domains that are essential for function and that do undergo the kind of folding upon binding mentioned above. This makes these proteins more interesting to me intellectually (not that they would be boring without disorder), but can also make them significantly more difficult to study than your garden variety well-folded, globular protein.
The IDP field is populated by large numbers of bioinformaticists (spawning my last post). There are also experimentalists and computational biologists (of the molecular simulation kind), but much of the initial driving force in creating this as a field appears to have come from the bioinformaticists. A small group of them.
Who are seriously over hyping the field.***
The hype being based largely on predictions of disorder. Predictions. Not much data. A prediction is just a pointer to something that might (or might not) be interesting. It's pretty much meaningless without experimental verification.
This is a problem. Yes, we all need to sell ourselves and our research. We all need to convince others that what we do is important and should receive gobs of funding $$$'s. But what you're selling has to have some connection to reality. A track record. Data.
Right now the IDP field has all the appearances of an infomercial for some kitchen gadget that is promised to mix, knead, puree, blend, chop, slice, dice, julienne, fry, roast, bake, boil, steam, load the dishwasher, sweep the floors, put the children to bed, and polish your shoes. Only believable in the wee hours of the morning after a long evening consuming copious quantities of the alcoholic beverage of your choice.
For now I'm keeping my credit card in my pocket.
* There are many, many recent reviews on the subject. This one is okay (and free).
** I seriously dislike the name "intrinsically disordered protein." For a start, the majority of the IDP's that have been identified are mostly well-structured and only have a fraction of their sequences disordered. I saw someone use the term "intrinsically disordered region." That's an improvement.
*** Case in point: the many, many reviews. Many, many of which were authored/co-authored by this guy. Dude, enough already. Go spend some time in the lab generating new data.
I'm interested in IDP's** because two of my favorite proteins have disordered domains that are essential for function and that do undergo the kind of folding upon binding mentioned above. This makes these proteins more interesting to me intellectually (not that they would be boring without disorder), but can also make them significantly more difficult to study than your garden variety well-folded, globular protein.
The IDP field is populated by large numbers of bioinformaticists (spawning my last post). There are also experimentalists and computational biologists (of the molecular simulation kind), but much of the initial driving force in creating this as a field appears to have come from the bioinformaticists. A small group of them.
Who are seriously over hyping the field.***
The hype being based largely on predictions of disorder. Predictions. Not much data. A prediction is just a pointer to something that might (or might not) be interesting. It's pretty much meaningless without experimental verification.
This is a problem. Yes, we all need to sell ourselves and our research. We all need to convince others that what we do is important and should receive gobs of funding $$$'s. But what you're selling has to have some connection to reality. A track record. Data.
Right now the IDP field has all the appearances of an infomercial for some kitchen gadget that is promised to mix, knead, puree, blend, chop, slice, dice, julienne, fry, roast, bake, boil, steam, load the dishwasher, sweep the floors, put the children to bed, and polish your shoes. Only believable in the wee hours of the morning after a long evening consuming copious quantities of the alcoholic beverage of your choice.
For now I'm keeping my credit card in my pocket.
* There are many, many recent reviews on the subject. This one is okay (and free).
** I seriously dislike the name "intrinsically disordered protein." For a start, the majority of the IDP's that have been identified are mostly well-structured and only have a fraction of their sequences disordered. I saw someone use the term "intrinsically disordered region." That's an improvement.
*** Case in point: the many, many reviews. Many, many of which were authored/co-authored by this guy. Dude, enough already. Go spend some time in the lab generating new data.
Monday, July 19, 2010
Data mining talks
As a molecular biophysicist I often hear talks (and see posters) given by bioinformaticists.* I am struck by how these are almost uniformly abysmal. I'm not necessarily referring to the data, but rather the presentation as a whole. This has reached the point where I don't think I can bring myself to sit through another bioinformatics talk (or poster presentation) for at least the next three months.
Why has the quality of the now dozens of such talks I've suffered through been so low?
In the majority of cases I posit it's a combination, in varying degrees, of a lack of imagination and a disconnection from the underlying biology. Too many of these presenters regale their audiences with interminable laundry lists of how property X is over-represented in sequences of class A, and under-represented in sequences of class B. Ummmm... So what? Why should I care? Often such presenters either don't know or are too lazy to spend the time connecting their data with known biology. As an example, I recently sat through a talk where the speaker made a big deal about the prevalence of glutamine-rich sequences in proteins involved in transcription. Not once did he refer to the fairly substantial body of experimental data on these very same sequences. In fact, when asked, he couldn't offer up any explanation for this observation.** Major fail.
I can't explain why this happens. Obviously it shouldn't. Perhaps it's a function of the relatively immature nature of bioinformatics as a field. It's still at a stage where method development trumps method application. Application of the intelligent kind.
I remember when macromolecular crystallography talks suffered from similar issues. They would often be these long detailed descriptions of the structure(s) just solved by the crystallographer. No connection to the biology, just the details of the structure. Listen, I don't give a rat's arse that there's a type VIIb turn between helices 7 and 8. What I want to know is what the structure tells us about the biology. Nowadays most crystallographers do make the connections. One can't get a grant for simply solving structures any more.***
I've heard through the grapevine that getting a grant to do bioinformatics has become increasingly difficult. More so than would be expected from the downturn in science funding. Perhaps we'll see the field forced to mature more rapidly and presentations improve.
* By "bioinformatics" I mean the data-mining thing. A colleague once defined it thusly: "Bioinformatics is the mining of biological databases for profit (not necessarily of the monetary kind)." This is distinct from computational biology which, at least at the molecular level, tends to employ an energy function of sorts.
** Glutamine-rich regions can be involved in DNA binding - the glutamine side chain is quite good at making hydrogen bonds with nucleic acids.
*** Not when I'm reviewing the grant. :-)
Why has the quality of the now dozens of such talks I've suffered through been so low?
In the majority of cases I posit it's a combination, in varying degrees, of a lack of imagination and a disconnection from the underlying biology. Too many of these presenters regale their audiences with interminable laundry lists of how property X is over-represented in sequences of class A, and under-represented in sequences of class B. Ummmm... So what? Why should I care? Often such presenters either don't know or are too lazy to spend the time connecting their data with known biology. As an example, I recently sat through a talk where the speaker made a big deal about the prevalence of glutamine-rich sequences in proteins involved in transcription. Not once did he refer to the fairly substantial body of experimental data on these very same sequences. In fact, when asked, he couldn't offer up any explanation for this observation.** Major fail.
I can't explain why this happens. Obviously it shouldn't. Perhaps it's a function of the relatively immature nature of bioinformatics as a field. It's still at a stage where method development trumps method application. Application of the intelligent kind.
I remember when macromolecular crystallography talks suffered from similar issues. They would often be these long detailed descriptions of the structure(s) just solved by the crystallographer. No connection to the biology, just the details of the structure. Listen, I don't give a rat's arse that there's a type VIIb turn between helices 7 and 8. What I want to know is what the structure tells us about the biology. Nowadays most crystallographers do make the connections. One can't get a grant for simply solving structures any more.***
I've heard through the grapevine that getting a grant to do bioinformatics has become increasingly difficult. More so than would be expected from the downturn in science funding. Perhaps we'll see the field forced to mature more rapidly and presentations improve.
* By "bioinformatics" I mean the data-mining thing. A colleague once defined it thusly: "Bioinformatics is the mining of biological databases for profit (not necessarily of the monetary kind)." This is distinct from computational biology which, at least at the molecular level, tends to employ an energy function of sorts.
** Glutamine-rich regions can be involved in DNA binding - the glutamine side chain is quite good at making hydrogen bonds with nucleic acids.
*** Not when I'm reviewing the grant. :-)
Friday, July 09, 2010
Geekery
Thanks to the grant-making powers that be it looks like I might be getting a new toy. Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
Now I need to start planning how to get one of these... Or an equivalent.
I like fluorescence. Can you tell?
Now I need to start planning how to get one of these... Or an equivalent.
I like fluorescence. Can you tell?
Monday, June 14, 2010
Targeted reviewers?
There's been some discussion on various blogs about the "OMG! NSF is Completely Broken and the World is Going to End!" forum headed up by the disgruntled "Aureliano Buendia." See Prof-like Substance and DrugMonkey for some interesting comments.
Something mentioned in that forum and in a comment at DrugMonkey's piqued my interest. QoQ over at DM's asserted that the NSF is indeed broken and noted in support:
First, the identity of the reviewers is not public and changes from submission to submission -- so you can't target a grant.
You can't target a grant.* I'm not entirely sure what QoQ means by this, but I suspect they want to write their proposals for specific reviewers on the panel. Perhaps so they can try to "butter up" the reviewers by citing their work favorably and often, or to avoid having to write a proposal in more general language that reviewers not experts in the sub-sub-field can understand. Or maybe even both. Or neither.
It doesn't matter really, because targeting reviewers on the panel is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!!!
Why?
'Cos there ain't no guarantee that the reviewers you are targeting will get your proposal.
In fact the odds are not in the least bit favorable. Review panels at the NSF (and study sections at the NIH) cannot have experts from every sub-sub-field on them. Unless you want either panels with many dozens of members, or many, many more panels than currently exist (and there are already a lot). So the odds are there may be one reviewer at most who is an expert in your particular sub-sub-field (and that person is likely a competitor...).
Targeting panel members would be a particularly stupid thing to attempt (if you could) at the NSF where you could have anywhere from three to ten people reviewing your proposal. Usually three or so on the panel, and the rest as outside, "mail in" reviewers. Even if there is an expert on the panel you could target, one good review isn't even close to being enough to land funding. And let's be realistic - a panel member might be somewhat flattered by some "buttering up" in a proposal, but they're generally smart enough to recognize it for what it is.
Write your proposals for people only somewhat conversant with your corner of the field (and cite all the relevant literature, and none of the irrelevant). If you can't do that, chances are, you won't stand a chance of being funded.
* Actually, the NSF does let you do a form of targeting that a proposer would be foolish not to take advantage of. When you submit your proposal you are given the chance to suggest reviewers. In my experience NSF PO's do actually use some of these suggestions as outside reviewers. Obviously these need to be reasonable suggestions...
Something mentioned in that forum and in a comment at DrugMonkey's piqued my interest. QoQ over at DM's asserted that the NSF is indeed broken and noted in support:
First, the identity of the reviewers is not public and changes from submission to submission -- so you can't target a grant.
You can't target a grant.* I'm not entirely sure what QoQ means by this, but I suspect they want to write their proposals for specific reviewers on the panel. Perhaps so they can try to "butter up" the reviewers by citing their work favorably and often, or to avoid having to write a proposal in more general language that reviewers not experts in the sub-sub-field can understand. Or maybe even both. Or neither.
It doesn't matter really, because targeting reviewers on the panel is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!!!!!!
Why?
'Cos there ain't no guarantee that the reviewers you are targeting will get your proposal.
In fact the odds are not in the least bit favorable. Review panels at the NSF (and study sections at the NIH) cannot have experts from every sub-sub-field on them. Unless you want either panels with many dozens of members, or many, many more panels than currently exist (and there are already a lot). So the odds are there may be one reviewer at most who is an expert in your particular sub-sub-field (and that person is likely a competitor...).
Targeting panel members would be a particularly stupid thing to attempt (if you could) at the NSF where you could have anywhere from three to ten people reviewing your proposal. Usually three or so on the panel, and the rest as outside, "mail in" reviewers. Even if there is an expert on the panel you could target, one good review isn't even close to being enough to land funding. And let's be realistic - a panel member might be somewhat flattered by some "buttering up" in a proposal, but they're generally smart enough to recognize it for what it is.
Write your proposals for people only somewhat conversant with your corner of the field (and cite all the relevant literature, and none of the irrelevant). If you can't do that, chances are, you won't stand a chance of being funded.
* Actually, the NSF does let you do a form of targeting that a proposer would be foolish not to take advantage of. When you submit your proposal you are given the chance to suggest reviewers. In my experience NSF PO's do actually use some of these suggestions as outside reviewers. Obviously these need to be reasonable suggestions...
Friday, June 11, 2010
If you're going to say no, at least do it quickly
I'm on the editorial board of a journal in my field. I am often assigned manuscripts as managing editor. This means finding reviewers. Of late I've noticed a disturbing trend (ANECDOTE ALERT!!!). People I ask are taking an unreasonably long time to decide whether or not they will review a manuscript. Days. A week even. If this were just one or two people you could explain it away easily enough. They're traveling, for example. But it's not one or two. It's approaching 30-40%. Given that I'm managing two to four manuscripts at any given moment, that's a lot. And when they eventually get back to me (those that do...), they invariably say no they can't review the manuscript.
Why are you taking so long? Read the abstract (which we send in the email), think about what else you have to get done in the next couple of weeks, and decide whether or not this is a review you want to do. Then get back to me by reply email. Not a hard process. The longer you take to decline the invitation, the longer the whole process takes. Is that what you want to happen with your manuscripts? Didn't think so. So if you're going to decline, get off your rear end and say no quickly.
Why are you taking so long? Read the abstract (which we send in the email), think about what else you have to get done in the next couple of weeks, and decide whether or not this is a review you want to do. Then get back to me by reply email. Not a hard process. The longer you take to decline the invitation, the longer the whole process takes. Is that what you want to happen with your manuscripts? Didn't think so. So if you're going to decline, get off your rear end and say no quickly.
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
Building bridges
Based on the comments to my previous post, albeit a small sample size, there does seem to be support for requiring recipients of, or applicants for, bridge funding to demonstrate their worthiness. While I have the attention of a larger than normal audience (thanks to DrugMonkey), let me ask how bridge funding is handled in your department. Do you have set criteria/expectations, or is it handed out seemingly arbitrarily? If there are criteria, what are they?
Monday, April 12, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Travel notes
A few observations after having returned from a meeting:
1) As someone in line before me found out, belligerently demanding airport security rush you through the screening process because you're late for your flight, and then becoming abusive when security politely informs you that you have to go through the same process as everyone else, is guaranteed to get you "special" treatment. And make you miss your flight.
2) There is an inverse correlation between the amount you pay for a hotel room and the chances of the stopper in the bathroom sink working.
3) The odds of the movie shown on my cross-country flight being watchable are slim to none.
4) The odds of the person sitting next to me on a cross-country flight having some hygiene issues are quite high.
5) Really bad talks get discussed far more than decent, but not quite kick-ass, talks. But not in a good way. The postdoc who gave a talk that very clearly demonstrated that he didn't know or understand basic physical properties of the kind we expect undergrads to know will be remembered for some time.
6) Not knowing how to set up, run and/or analyze experiments is not an impediment to giving a talk at a large meeting based on said experiments (n >> 10). And this is not correlated with career stage (student vs. postdoc vs. PI).
7) The best airport in the world is the one you land at at the end of your trip.
1) As someone in line before me found out, belligerently demanding airport security rush you through the screening process because you're late for your flight, and then becoming abusive when security politely informs you that you have to go through the same process as everyone else, is guaranteed to get you "special" treatment. And make you miss your flight.
2) There is an inverse correlation between the amount you pay for a hotel room and the chances of the stopper in the bathroom sink working.
3) The odds of the movie shown on my cross-country flight being watchable are slim to none.
4) The odds of the person sitting next to me on a cross-country flight having some hygiene issues are quite high.
5) Really bad talks get discussed far more than decent, but not quite kick-ass, talks. But not in a good way. The postdoc who gave a talk that very clearly demonstrated that he didn't know or understand basic physical properties of the kind we expect undergrads to know will be remembered for some time.
6) Not knowing how to set up, run and/or analyze experiments is not an impediment to giving a talk at a large meeting based on said experiments (n >> 10). And this is not correlated with career stage (student vs. postdoc vs. PI).
7) The best airport in the world is the one you land at at the end of your trip.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Calling all chemistry types
Apparently the NSF Division of Chemistry is having trouble finding enough qualified reviewers. This would be a great opportunity for any chemistry types on the tenure-track out there. There is nothing like reviewing proposals to teach you how not to write one.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Live blogging
I know there has been some discussion on the 'tubes about live blogging from meetings, so I thought I'd pass this along. The Biophysical Society has selected four bloggers to live blog from the upcoming annual meeting in San Francisco. Apparently the Society is embracing blogging - not only did they call for volunteers they are apparently giving the selected bloggers iPod nanos as incentives. Cool.
Go check out the bloggers:
Sukriti at Eureka!
Matt at insingulo
Casey and company at Haverford
Fabian at science:biophysics//NBI prereflexive cogito
Go check out the bloggers:
Sukriti at Eureka!
Matt at insingulo
Casey and company at Haverford
Fabian at science:biophysics//NBI prereflexive cogito
Monday, February 15, 2010
Write for your reviewers
There was an interesting discussion over at DrugMonkey recently regarding perceived and/or real issues with the grant review process. In particular there was some back and forth over what to do when you receive bad reviews from someone who clearly isn't an expert in your area. My first thought on reading some of this was...
Why on earth would you EXPECT the reviewers of your proposal to be experts in your field?????
It takes very little thought to come to the realization that the odds are very much against the roster of an NIH study section or NSF review panel actually having even one such expert. It is simply unrealistic to expect that to be the case. And even if it is, your proposal may not be assigned to that person for a variety of reasons (conflict of interest, reviewer already overloaded etc.).
Having your proposal reviewed is nothing like having a manuscript reviewed. Journal editors have access to a much, much larger pool of potential reviewers than program officers (PO's). Editors have the "luxury" of identifying and contacting reviewers who really do know the specific area of each manuscript.* PO's are stuck with the study section/review panel roster, plus maybe some ad hoc reviewers. And those ad hocs may not be experts in your area. Even if they do use ad hocs (very commonplace at the NSF**), your PO, and you as a proposer, want reviewers who are on the panel. No matter how good the ad hoc reviews, if someone, preferably two someones, on the panel isn't pushing hard for your proposal it won't be funded. Period.
So why would you write a proposal thinking it's going to be reviewed by an expert? Don't. You'd just be screwing yourself. Write it for reviewers with a general knowledge of your area. That's grantology 101.
* Getting them to agree to review is another matter.
** At the NSF ad hocs submit reviews electronically and aren't present at the panel.
Why on earth would you EXPECT the reviewers of your proposal to be experts in your field?????
It takes very little thought to come to the realization that the odds are very much against the roster of an NIH study section or NSF review panel actually having even one such expert. It is simply unrealistic to expect that to be the case. And even if it is, your proposal may not be assigned to that person for a variety of reasons (conflict of interest, reviewer already overloaded etc.).
Having your proposal reviewed is nothing like having a manuscript reviewed. Journal editors have access to a much, much larger pool of potential reviewers than program officers (PO's). Editors have the "luxury" of identifying and contacting reviewers who really do know the specific area of each manuscript.* PO's are stuck with the study section/review panel roster, plus maybe some ad hoc reviewers. And those ad hocs may not be experts in your area. Even if they do use ad hocs (very commonplace at the NSF**), your PO, and you as a proposer, want reviewers who are on the panel. No matter how good the ad hoc reviews, if someone, preferably two someones, on the panel isn't pushing hard for your proposal it won't be funded. Period.
So why would you write a proposal thinking it's going to be reviewed by an expert? Don't. You'd just be screwing yourself. Write it for reviewers with a general knowledge of your area. That's grantology 101.
* Getting them to agree to review is another matter.
** At the NSF ad hocs submit reviews electronically and aren't present at the panel.
Friday, February 05, 2010
End of an (old) era
This week I sent three of these off to surplus.
A 13-year old Unix workstation...
Kind of cute really.
I had bought them out of my start up funds when I first started here. I hadn't turned them on for at least five years. I felt kind of sad getting rid of them.
A 13-year old Unix workstation...
Kind of cute really.
I had bought them out of my start up funds when I first started here. I hadn't turned them on for at least five years. I felt kind of sad getting rid of them.
Friday, January 22, 2010
Kickass or kickarse science?
In my last post I referred to "kickass science." My piratical big brother and PiT both asserted it should be "arse" not "ass." So, dear readers, is it kickass...
or, kickarse?
Discuss.
or, kickarse?
Discuss.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Your science is not enough
There's an awful lot of good advice out there in the blogosphere on how to succeed at many aspects of academia. DrugMonkey and Writedit are great resources for grant-writing, Professor in Training and Prof-like Substance are chronicling the trials and tribulations of being tenure-track assistant profs in the biological sciences, DrDrA is transitioning to the next level, and FemaleScienceProfessor provides a great deal of useful information from the senior level, etc. One thing that I have not seen discussed very much is something I have a problem with...
Assertiveness.
Some grad students and postdocs might be surprised to hear that once you reach the giddy heights of an academic position your kickass science is no longer sufficient. It's what will get you that position, but it's not enough to progress in your field from there. Yes, you can obtain grants and publish based solely on the science, but it's not enough. It's necessary, and importantly, you need some kickass science first and foremost. But kickass science alone probably won't get you invited to speak at a meeting or another institution. It won't set up the collaborations with the heavy hitters and rising stars in your field. Kickass science might make you a familiar name in your field, but not necessarily a presence in the field. It won't necessarily get you the recognition you think you're due.
That's where assertiveness comes in. Want to know how many speakers at meetings (other than the heavy hitters) get those slots? They asked. They pushed themselves forward, told the organizers "I have kickass science, I can give a kickass presentation and I deserve a slot". Ditto for many of those people giving seminars at your institution. Ditto for a collaboration between a heavy hitter and a junior person. Ditto for invitations to submit manuscripts for special issues of journals. Ditto for some publications in GlamourMagz. It goes on all the time. Next time you find yourself thinking "How the hell did they get that invitation/collaboration?", remind yourself they probably asked. Pushed. Lobbied. It's something I'm not terribly good at, but I'm trying to improve (damn it, I'm good enough, I deserve that recognition!).
People are surprisingly often willing to give someone a chance. But just one. You need to deliver. If you promise a kickass presentation of kickass science you had better deliver. Offered a killer collaboration? Deliver it. Pushed for an invitation to submit a stellar manuscript? Make it better than stellar. Otherwise those doors will be slammed shut. Too many doors slammed on you will get you a reputation that's hard to get rid of.
Something to think about and work on.
Just remember though, you have to have the kickass science first.
Assertiveness.
Some grad students and postdocs might be surprised to hear that once you reach the giddy heights of an academic position your kickass science is no longer sufficient. It's what will get you that position, but it's not enough to progress in your field from there. Yes, you can obtain grants and publish based solely on the science, but it's not enough. It's necessary, and importantly, you need some kickass science first and foremost. But kickass science alone probably won't get you invited to speak at a meeting or another institution. It won't set up the collaborations with the heavy hitters and rising stars in your field. Kickass science might make you a familiar name in your field, but not necessarily a presence in the field. It won't necessarily get you the recognition you think you're due.
That's where assertiveness comes in. Want to know how many speakers at meetings (other than the heavy hitters) get those slots? They asked. They pushed themselves forward, told the organizers "I have kickass science, I can give a kickass presentation and I deserve a slot". Ditto for many of those people giving seminars at your institution. Ditto for a collaboration between a heavy hitter and a junior person. Ditto for invitations to submit manuscripts for special issues of journals. Ditto for some publications in GlamourMagz. It goes on all the time. Next time you find yourself thinking "How the hell did they get that invitation/collaboration?", remind yourself they probably asked. Pushed. Lobbied. It's something I'm not terribly good at, but I'm trying to improve (damn it, I'm good enough, I deserve that recognition!).
People are surprisingly often willing to give someone a chance. But just one. You need to deliver. If you promise a kickass presentation of kickass science you had better deliver. Offered a killer collaboration? Deliver it. Pushed for an invitation to submit a stellar manuscript? Make it better than stellar. Otherwise those doors will be slammed shut. Too many doors slammed on you will get you a reputation that's hard to get rid of.
Something to think about and work on.
Just remember though, you have to have the kickass science first.
Tuesday, January 05, 2010
New Year
2010 already. How did that happen?
No matter. This is going to be a good year for me.
My somewhat recently resurrected research project is making good progress despite the occasional hiccup.
Odyssey's research project has a minor setback.
The bride of the above-mentioned project is showing strong signs of life and is the subject of a proposal about to go out the door.
The bride of Odyssey's research program is alive! Sort of.
And now my project has...
a son!!!!
Doesn't Dad look proud?
Of course he can't walk yet. And he's still on life support. But still, progress looms.
There are papers and proposals to write. Experiments to plan. Talks to give. Meetings to attend. Coffee to consume.
Life is good.
May this be a good year for all of us.
No matter. This is going to be a good year for me.
My somewhat recently resurrected research project is making good progress despite the occasional hiccup.
Odyssey's research project has a minor setback.
The bride of the above-mentioned project is showing strong signs of life and is the subject of a proposal about to go out the door.
The bride of Odyssey's research program is alive! Sort of.
And now my project has...
a son!!!!
Doesn't Dad look proud?
Of course he can't walk yet. And he's still on life support. But still, progress looms.
There are papers and proposals to write. Experiments to plan. Talks to give. Meetings to attend. Coffee to consume.
Life is good.
May this be a good year for all of us.
Thursday, December 17, 2009
An update to "You lost WHAT?!?!?"
An update to a recent post...
Those of you with access to Science might be interested in reading this. I'm afraid it's too long to reproduce here... The whole sorry affair apparently has involved attempted extortion, harassment, a suicide threat and someone failing to make tenure. Science may not be a care bears tea party, but apparently it can be good soap opera material.
Those of you with access to Science might be interested in reading this. I'm afraid it's too long to reproduce here... The whole sorry affair apparently has involved attempted extortion, harassment, a suicide threat and someone failing to make tenure. Science may not be a care bears tea party, but apparently it can be good soap opera material.
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
You lost WHAT?!?!?!?!?
I was waiting for the lads over at Drugmonkey to tackle this since CPP would no doubt do a better job. But since they haven't as yet, here goes...
In the November 26 issue of Science there's yet another retraction. This time it's from the group of Peter Schultz. For those who aren't in the know, Schultz has made a name for himself developing ways to trick the translational machinery into inserting non-natural residues into protein chains. The retracted paper (Science 303, 371 (2004)) dealt with the insertion of residues with an attached sugar, the idea being this could be used to study glycosylated proteins in a more controlled manner.
For those without access to Science, here's the retraction in full:
Let's break this down...
Say what?!?!? You LOST the lab notebooks???? And it's not the fault of any of the authors???? Okay, I can imagine a number of circumstances where this could happen. A fire for example. But if it's something like that why not give the details???? I'm all for the assumption of innocence and all that, but come on, this smells worse than a bucket of shrimp in the sun.
They can't reproduce their own experiments. Now call me old school, but I always go by that tried and true rule that the Materials and Methods section of a paper should contain enough detail that the experiments can be reproduced by someone else. Someone not in the lab that did the work. And the retracted article does have two pages of supplementary material, most of which is the Materials and Methods... But the lab (and presumably the authors) that originally did the work still can't reproduce it even with the combination of the lab's collective knowledge and memory plus the published Materials and Methods. Smell that bucket of shrimp yet?
We lose our lab notebooks and can't reproduce our own experiments, but everyone should still trust us...
I need to open a window or two.
In the November 26 issue of Science there's yet another retraction. This time it's from the group of Peter Schultz. For those who aren't in the know, Schultz has made a name for himself developing ways to trick the translational machinery into inserting non-natural residues into protein chains. The retracted paper (Science 303, 371 (2004)) dealt with the insertion of residues with an attached sugar, the idea being this could be used to study glycosylated proteins in a more controlled manner.
For those without access to Science, here's the retraction in full:
Retraction
We wish to retract our Report (1) in which we report that β–N-acetylglucosamine-serine can be biosynthetically incorporated at a defined site in myoglobin in Escherichia coli. Regrettably, through no fault of the authors, the lab notebooks are no longer available to replicate the original experimental conditions, and we are unable to introduce this amino acid into myoglobin with the information and reagents currently in hand. We note that reagents and conditions for the incorporation of more than 50 amino acids described in other published work from the Schultz lab are available upon request.
Zhiwen Zhang,1 Jeff Gildersleeve,2 Yu-Ying Yang,3 Ran Xu,4 Joseph A. Loo,5 Sean Uryu,6 Chi-Huey Wong,7 Peter G. Schultz7,*
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: [email protected]
1 The University of Texas at Austin, Division of Medicinal Chemistry, College of Pharmacy, Austin, TX 78712, USA.
2 Chemical Biology Section, National Cancer Institute, Frederick, MD 21702, USA.
3 Rockefeller University, New York, NY 10065, USA.
4 6330 Buffalo Speedway, Houston, TX 77005, USA.
5 Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of California, Los Angeles, CA 90095–1569, USA.
6 University of California, San Diego, CA 92121, USA.
7 The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA 92037, USA.
Reference
1. Z. Zhang et al., Science 303, 371 (2004).
Let's break this down...
Regrettably, through no fault of the authors, the lab notebooks are no longer available to replicate the original experimental conditions...
Say what?!?!? You LOST the lab notebooks???? And it's not the fault of any of the authors???? Okay, I can imagine a number of circumstances where this could happen. A fire for example. But if it's something like that why not give the details???? I'm all for the assumption of innocence and all that, but come on, this smells worse than a bucket of shrimp in the sun.
...and we are unable to introduce this amino acid into myoglobin with the information and reagents currently in hand.
They can't reproduce their own experiments. Now call me old school, but I always go by that tried and true rule that the Materials and Methods section of a paper should contain enough detail that the experiments can be reproduced by someone else. Someone not in the lab that did the work. And the retracted article does have two pages of supplementary material, most of which is the Materials and Methods... But the lab (and presumably the authors) that originally did the work still can't reproduce it even with the combination of the lab's collective knowledge and memory plus the published Materials and Methods. Smell that bucket of shrimp yet?
We note that reagents and conditions for the incorporation of more than 50 amino acids described in other published work from the Schultz lab are available upon request.
We lose our lab notebooks and can't reproduce our own experiments, but everyone should still trust us...
I need to open a window or two.
Friday, October 30, 2009
What's your h-index?
Actually I don't really want to know. Listing h-indices here would be akin to having a pissing contest. Puerile, messy and smelly...
In recent years I've noticed an increase in the number of people who list the number of times their publications have been cited in their c.v.'s and/or biosketches.* Many have started listing their h-indices as well. At first I viewed this as a form of bragging. But now I've seen it enough that I'm beginning to pay attention. We could argue ad infinitum as to whether number of citations and/or h-indices are useful measures of a person's productivity and standing in their field.** That's akin to the interminable Mac vs. PC arguments*** and I'm really not interested in that kind of semi-religious "discussion". What I am interested in is people's opinions as to whether or not this is a reasonable practice. Do any of my readers list citation statistics in their c.v.'s or biosketches? What are your thoughts on this? Do your respective departments take such things into account come annual review time (which is now for many of us)?
I don't list citation statistics in my c.v./biosketch (but might do so in the future if it seems advantageous). And my department doesn't formally consider such things, although I suspect some of the senior faculty spend some time on ISI's Web of Knowledge prior to annual reviews figuring out the stats on the more junior faculty.
Finally, I wouldn't recommend grad students and junior postdocs listing such stats unless they have a really highly cited paper or two. I have seen senior postdocs applying for TT positions list their stats. In some cases it helps. In others, not so much. It's a good idea to poke around and see how you stack up versus your peers before making the decision.
* Yes, in biosketches in grant proposals. At least in NSF and private foundation proposals.
** Personally I find number of publications, average number of citations per publication, plus h-index the most informative combination, but recognize even that has flaws.
*** Mac.
In recent years I've noticed an increase in the number of people who list the number of times their publications have been cited in their c.v.'s and/or biosketches.* Many have started listing their h-indices as well. At first I viewed this as a form of bragging. But now I've seen it enough that I'm beginning to pay attention. We could argue ad infinitum as to whether number of citations and/or h-indices are useful measures of a person's productivity and standing in their field.** That's akin to the interminable Mac vs. PC arguments*** and I'm really not interested in that kind of semi-religious "discussion". What I am interested in is people's opinions as to whether or not this is a reasonable practice. Do any of my readers list citation statistics in their c.v.'s or biosketches? What are your thoughts on this? Do your respective departments take such things into account come annual review time (which is now for many of us)?
I don't list citation statistics in my c.v./biosketch (but might do so in the future if it seems advantageous). And my department doesn't formally consider such things, although I suspect some of the senior faculty spend some time on ISI's Web of Knowledge prior to annual reviews figuring out the stats on the more junior faculty.
Finally, I wouldn't recommend grad students and junior postdocs listing such stats unless they have a really highly cited paper or two. I have seen senior postdocs applying for TT positions list their stats. In some cases it helps. In others, not so much. It's a good idea to poke around and see how you stack up versus your peers before making the decision.
* Yes, in biosketches in grant proposals. At least in NSF and private foundation proposals.
** Personally I find number of publications, average number of citations per publication, plus h-index the most informative combination, but recognize even that has flaws.
*** Mac.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
