Jun 24 2014 Published by under Uncategorized

Cool result! Yay!

Control verification fails inexplicably. Ugh. How can this be?

Running obvious other So first control was valid, meaning the negative result was also valid.

Scrutinizes data......AHA!

Actually explains the design flaw in our first control! YAY!

New experiment planned.

12 responses so far

  • Jim Woodgett says:

    Don't you just love it when science ever so gently nudges you in the right direction despite your strong desire to take the assured path to misery?

  • daniel says:


    there is no desire for path to misery. Science is beatiful but hard enough to always try to do it right. Except that doubts on reagents quality and specificity is almost innate in the life of a scientist

  • drugmonkey says:

    Ha, indeed doubt about the reagent was the reason for the second control. Reagent is fine. My assumption based on a very substantial literature was probably not valid. Onward!

  • Grumble says:

    A 6-line poem explaining DM's 6-figure salary.

  • Dave says:

    My assumption based on a very substantial literature was probably not valid

    Isn't that usually the case?

  • drugmonkey says:

    I wouldn't say "usually", no. This is a pretty mature subarea of interest. But there are always twists. Otherwise it wouldn't be science, right?

  • Dude, how fucken boring it must be to be you, wasting time chasing down the validity of assumptions "based on a very substantial literature" "in a mature subarea of interest". Wouldn't you rather be making novel discoveries, revealing shitte that no one ever thought of before, and establishing new areas of interest?

  • eeke says:

    CPP - that sort of thing is restricted to BSD types. Especially if you want to publish your findings or get funding for it. Unless DM is some sort of BSD. I have been advised of this from BSD's themselves, and have first-hand experience at trying to publish in a "new area of interest." It is the absurd truth.

  • drugmonkey says:

    Wouldn't you rather be making novel discoveries, revealing shitte that no one ever thought of before, and establishing new areas of interest?

    Not really, no. I prefer to work on stuff that is relevant to human health and has a solid basis in reality. Rather than dealing with faked up systems that are of dubious worth to anything having to do with anything. Even for the 0.1% of that bullshit that will turn out to be of real lasting value it will be decades before it turns out relevant for health. I'm sure you all in the Glamour Douche club think you are wearing very fine clothes indeed and it is only small minded peasants who can't detect your beautiful raiment but the rest of us are kind of disgusted by your hairy pimply behinds.

  • Comradde PhysioProffe says:

    Hahahahahahahah! A simple "fucke you, glamour troll" would have sufficed. But your logorrheic outrage is much appreciated.

  • E-rock says:

    Chasing down established assumptions is way more interesting than my in process ms of having assembled data ruling out several proposed mechanisms without figuring out what the real mech is. Gotta publish though bc the clock keeps ticking.

    I was browsing olde blog posts and read this comment by gummibear "Hiring active, established scientists for temporary stints as POs. This would strengthen the position of the PO, compared to the current POs, who are mostly career bureaucrats with quite meaningless doctorates." Made me think of Thomas Jefferson answering Washington's call to service (that included an all expense paid trip to France). It's an idea worth whispering about. Also reminds me of the practice I learned about on the interview circuit of rotating, temporary, dept chairs at SLACs, a call to (compensated) service instead of Palm Springs of biomed research.

  • JaneB says:

    In a rather different (muddy/field-rich) part of STEM, I still feel that picking holes in long-held assumptions is both fun and valuable science - building castles in the air like my GlamourMagzPursuing colleagues gives me imposter syndrome and is deeply frustrating. Castles in the air may lead to more recognition and "shiney points", but they will only be any use to anyone (even to the next lot of scientists along!) once several other someones have carefully checked and replaced most of the stardust with robust bricks (also made of star-stuff, just the pragmatic, external-world kind). A taxonomist colleague (now there is a pretty lonely part of the profession, especially if you aren't into the genetics) described castle-builders as mostly "testiculating"...

Leave a Reply