Open Thread

Jul 14 2015 Published by under BlogBlather, Day in the life of DrugMonkey

Whatcha got for me today?

39 responses so far

  • Selerax says:

    It's the 14th of July. Load up on red wine and cassoulet, citoyens!

  • olympiasepiriot says:

    If you are NYC, there is a traffic-calming vigil in Union Square tonight from 7-8:30.

    A friend retweeted this: https://twitter.com/studioexec1/status/620866252609875968

  • olympiasepiriot says:

    Gah! Typo! If you are IN New York City...

  • scitrigrrl says:

    You mean the Pluto flyby wasn't enough drama for one day?

  • eeke says:

    Anything Pluto and Harper Lee.

  • AcademicLurker says:

    "New Horizons spacecraft discovers new lost Harper Lee novel on Pluto".

  • Dave says:

    Greece should have left the Euro.

  • ImmunoPD says:

    Wittiest comment on European disaster from ‏@DanielGordis on Twitter: "If only there were a Greek word for a victory that is actually a defeat, & a German word for pleasure derived from the misfortune of others."

  • Dave says:

    Tsipras has just done a complete 180. It's bizarre, and in the end he accepted a deal that was much worse than the original one on the table. The Germans were basically forcing them out of the euro with troll-like demands, and he bloody went for it. Unbelievable.

  • Dave says:

    Also, who here thinks Raheem Sterling is worth 50 million pounds?

  • Colin says:

    Also, who here thinks Raheem Sterling is worth 50 million pounds?

    We can't even prove postdocs are worth 0.1% of that. UK GDP per capita is 41,787.47 USD (2013), so the Rawlsian in me says that is what Raheem Sterling is "worth".

  • L Kiswa says:

    "Also, who here thinks Raheem Sterling is worth 50 million pounds?"

    Ability-wise, no. Market rate -- probably.

  • Young PI says:

    Why can't we post responses on the previous post? Science magazine's career advice...

  • profduder says:

    Here's something interesting. . .

    BSD moves from UCSD to USC*.

    UCSD sues USC.

    USC gets restraining order from UCSD.

    Summary:
    http://www.xconomy.com/san-diego/2015/07/06/deeper-issues-underlie-uc-san-diego-lawsuit-over-raid-by-usc/

    and

    http://www.xconomy.com/san-diego/2015/07/13/analysis-nih-guidelines-appear-to-support-ucsd-in-alzheimers-study/

    -------
    *USC opens a new institute in La Jolla to house BSD. 100 miles from the main USC campus.

  • drugmonkey says:

    Why can't we post responses on the previous post? Science magazine's career advice...

    Pretty sure that sciwo's post allows you to comment. I'd prefer you do it over there at her blog. She did the lifting here, she deserves the comment-crack.

  • drugmonkey says:

    profduder- yeah, this USC/UCSD thing does deserve a post, I've been trying to get around to it. Very interesting new direction for what seem to me to be run of the mill established prof hirings. happens all the time so...what's new here? just the amount of $$$?

  • physioprof says:

    What kind of fucken loser posts "Open Threads"?

  • drugmonkey says:

    Pharyngula

  • imager says:

    Best political comment of the week: "We have an agreekment." (by Tusk). Says it all.

  • drugmonkey says:

    No Bloom County fans? #smh

  • shrew says:

    Since Twiddle is not a good forum for explaining thoughts fully, I want to elaborate:

    The interesting question to me from the UCSD/USC thing is not the possibility of increasing limitations on whether PIs will be able to take their grants with them when they move institutions (though I agree that is interesting and very important).

    To me, what is interesting is UCSD alleging that this big deal PI and his people (his techs, postdocs, junior clinical faculty, etc, who, let's be real, are probably running the show for him) are not an important piece of the infrastructure that allows a grant to be executed. They are interchangeable. That is a fair reading of the idea that grants are awarded to institutions, and PIs are allowed to carry out the work.

    Part of me thinks this is preposterous, that the most important piece of whether a grant is executable are the brains and hands, and that this is implicitly understood by NIH and institutions because they usually don't make a fuss about transferring grants when a PI moves.

    Part of me thinks this is awesome, because the NIH funds Projects, not People (dammit). Those among us who would have NIH funding otherwise, in a "People not Projects" funding scheme, may find themselves facing significant counter-lobbying from high-power academic institutions. Which would be delicious.

  • Namaste_Ish says:

    I'm beginning to think that not everyone has my best interest at heart.

  • jmz4 says:

    Probably at least at spleen, though.

  • profduder says:

    Shrew: I think UCSD has a good case that this is an institutional grant more than an individual pi grant. The Alzheimer study has been at UCSD where it started since the 1990s. The original PI died in plane crash in like 2007. This new PI came over as a replacement from Georgetown, I believe. So it's not really his grant. It's more like a national center that is housed at UCSD and he is the current director.

    DM: aside from the above, I think what's new here is that USC hired him away from UCSD, then leased an office building across the street from his current USC lab for the new USC Alzheimer's institute he will oversee! I think UCSD is defending their geographic territory. If USC can do that, they can pick off all of UCSD's BSDs one by one. USC will have a new campus in San Diego filled with all stars, and UCSD will be left with the losers.

  • drugmonkey says:

    Well if this thing can survive the loss of Leon Thal....yeah, they can replace the guy who USC lured away. For sure.

    "Defending geographic territory" sounds like some nonsense cooked up by the #allegedprofession of journalism if you ask me. This isn't the Game of Thrones.

  • qaz says:

    DM - I think you underestimate the politics of universities. We live in the professorial trenches, but universities are really corporations and play a corporate game. (*) Many universities do have a "geographic territory". Particularly state universities. The corporation UCSD is very much in competition with the corporation USC. Corporations have always seen themselves as being in a non-cooperative competitive battle. It's only not Game of Thrones because it's less violent. (**) If this is a way for the very rich USC to steal faculty from UCSD, while keeping them in the UCSD neighborhood, UCSD would see that as a very dangerous precedent.

    * Is this a good thing? Probably not. I am not defending, just trying to understand facts on the ground.

    ** That's DEFINITELY a good thing.

  • bacillus says:

    Re: Raheem Sterling. Who thinks Rogers will use that $100M to return Liverpool to a top four contender this season?

  • drugmonkey says:

    Wait.... You people are on about the footie? Really? #smh

  • DJMH says:

    DM - I think you underestimate the politics of universities.

    For chrissakes qaz, you sound like someone who has never read this blog before.

    The thing that matters is the giant sucking sound of $100 million leaving the UCSD campus. The fact that it's moving basically across the street is just salt in the wound, not actually important in and of itself.

    Either way it's resolved, it's a giant hornet's nest. Sides being chosen and whatnot.

  • Dave says:

    Who thinks Rogers will use that $100M to return Liverpool to a top four contender this season?

    No way. If history is a guide, they will use that money to buy several crappy replacements that will flunk in the prem league. Liverpool will fail to qualify for CL (again) and, hopefully, Rogers will get fired.

  • qaz says:

    Large grants and bigname faculty leave universities all the time, often taking large projects with them. USC getting the PI without moving him is a new thing.

  • jmz4 says:

    So, random question for the open thread. I've heard recently from a couple new hires that you should do your level best to keep your PD lab off the authorship list when publishing in your new position, since publications with your old boss as a middle author don't "count" for the purposes of grants and tenure committees. Is this true?

  • drugmonkey says:

    In many places this is true.

  • A Salty Scientist says:

    So, should a ESI apply for a MIRA if they happen to be at an AREA-eligble uni? Waste of time? And how the hell do you even write the thing? Normally I would look to my mentors and colleagues for formatting examples, but there's nobody to look to. Obviously would contact some PO's, but not sure how much they'll be able to help.

  • shrew says:

    The way one has to bow and scrape to try to get an invitation to ACNP (if one was not lucky enough to receive the travel award) is nauseating. The society makes itself more powerful by artificial scarcity, no different than a glam journal. I hate that this meeting is so important, because everything about it seems designed to exacerbate traditional (white dude) power structures. (I know you go to this meeting, DM, and you must be aware of this quality.)

    Lots of my homies at the travel-awardee and associate member level have expressed similar disappointment at the gender bias, the academic nepotism, etc, but I only have one full member in my circle who expresses dismay at the power structure (other full members I know appear mostly fine with it since they made it into the Stonecutters).

    NPP is solid and fair, though.

  • drugmonkey says:

    Yes, I am aware of the sea of silver haired heads that dominates the average ACNP audience. It is a very peculiar academic society.

  • Dr Becca says:

    I have such inner conflict about ACNP. I groveled for invites for 2 years before finally getting a travel award (and back in the day you needed sponsors for both attendance and poster, so twice the groveling!), and it's maddening. But then the conference itself is so great on a science (and networking) level, I just think it's worth it - it's now probably my favorite meeting. I do think they're (slowly) trying to balance out the gender stuff. Last year the Presidential plenary was 50/50 male/female speakers, and Sheena Josselyn (very deservedly) got the big research achievement award. So maybe there's hope?

    Shrew-shrew, I hope you're going this year!

  • Namesaste_Ish says:

    Did we miss the part when I'm thinking that people don't have my best interest at heart? WHAT ABOUT WHAT I NEED??

  • shrew says:

    Dr Becca: I'm tryna. One of our mutual science bros who is an associate is seeing if he can get me one off the invite pool...this has been much more complicated this year than previously. Why does everyone want to go to Florida? More Hawai'i, please.

    Nameaste: Get me an ACNP invite and we'll talk.

Leave a Reply