-
-
Scientopia Blogs
DrugMonkey is an NIH-funded researcher who blogs about careerism in science. And occasionally about the science of drug use.
-
Your donation helps to support the operation of Scientopia - thanks for your consideration.
Recent Comments
- AProf on Stupid CV Tricks: Is a job talk an invited seminar?
- Resilience and funding and the NIH | Mistress of the Animals on Your Grant in Review: Follow the Reviewers' Style Guide
- Resilience and funding and the NIH | Mistress of the Animals on Writedit and the Bergster publish a book on NIH grant strategy
- Resilience and funding and the NIH | Mistress of the Animals on NIH gets serious about the mouths-at-the-trough. Sortof.
- Toni Morrison on “The Work You Do, the Person You Are” | Mistress of the Animals on Poo3d!!!!
- Zuska on Thought of the Day
- Dude Awesome on Kill the R21!!!!
- DNAman on Thought of the Day
- DNAman on Thought of the Day
- Reproducible Research, Just Not Reproducible By You - The Scholarly Kitchen on Amgen continues their cherry picking on "reproducibility" agenda
- Kelly on Your Grant in Review: The F32 Postdoctoral Fellowship Application
- Biossine on Never Ever Trust a Dec 1 NIH Grant Start Date: The Sickening
- Ass(ociate) Prof on NIA paylines and anti-ESI bias of review
- Jerry Everitt on The naked chutzpah and hypocrisy of an AR wackaloon
- meshugena313 on Thought of the Day
-
Recent Posts
Archives
So..congrats..but..I gotta ask...
Did you generate the data, or your underling? How much more overjoyed do you think the underling must be, if you're this excited? Do you ever resent your dependency on others for your data fix? Why don't PIs do benchwork anymore?
Sometimes I feel like it is easier for PIs to get excited about data. I'm frequently criticized for not being enthusiastic enough when I present my results. I think that's because I know all the caveats, while all the PIs see is the abstract of their next RPG.
Other people.
That's up to them.
No.
Some do.
!
I feel the same way and have received the same criticism.
"while all the PIs see is the abstract of their next RPG."
First, of course a PI should get excited at the potential for funding (trainees and staff should begin to appreciate that too). Second, the PI might also see the caveats, but that can bum you down. The key is seeing beyond the caveats. Also, consider the alternative: a PI that only sees the caveats and doesn't get excited. I bet that would be a lot worse.
I have always felt sad for the people that never get truly enthusiastic about their data. It must be so difficult to stay in this rat race without the excitement.
"Also, consider the alternative: a PI that only sees the caveats and doesn't get excited. I bet that would be a lot worse."
-True, part of being a PI is seeing the big picture and getting excited about it, and being a motivator. That's why I want to be there and not where I am. In the trenches, it's easy to get bummed out about the one control of a triplicate that didn't work, so you have to go back and redo essentially all the work to get the figure quality draft.
Also, at least part of it (with preliminary results) is tempering my enthusiasm until all the replicates are in (in my field the standard is three standalone experiments processed separately). And there's probably at least a tiny superstitious part of my brain that doesn't want to "jinx" it.
"It must be so difficult to stay in this rat race without the excitement."
Eh, I like the big pictures and concepts. I get excited planning the experiments, and writing up the manuscripts, or even grant applications. Also interpreting the occasional truly novel and interesting results. Like any other work though, there is a fair amount of drudgery. I imagine the drudgery of benchwork gets replaced by something equally tedious as a PI.