Archive for the 'Anger' category

Boomer academics plan to never, ever retire

Sep 26 2014 Published by under Academics, Anger

Somehow I missed this in the Inside Higher Ed a year ago.

Some 74 percent of professors aged 49-67 plan to delay retirement past age 65 or never retire at all, according to a new Fidelity Investments study of higher education faculty. While 69 percent of those surveyed cited financial concerns, an even higher percentage of professors said love of their careers factored into their decision.
...
For the faculty boomers who will delay retirement due to professional reasons, 89 percent want to stay busy and productive, 64 percent say they love their work too much to give it up, and 41 percent are unwilling to relinquish continued access to – and affiliation with – their institution.

USBirthsIn related news, this chart tells you about the size of the Boomer, X and Millennial generations in the US. Hint, look at the total-births trace. This has very real consequences. We see the effects of the Boomers in many job sectors, of course, but the academic science one is a job sector which encourages the hardening of generational privilege. People do not become too physically worn out to work. They clearly want nothing other than to die as an active member of the workforce. They simply persist.

At present, the oldsters/Boomers are a huge part of the distribution of the Professor class.

They have a disproportional and distorting effect on everything.

When they DO finally die off then the replacement will come from the Millennial generation. So big ups there, o complaining millennials! The future is bright.

Sourced from the CDC.

h/t: Neurorumblr

82 responses so far

People of science are just like other people. Horrible.

Sep 19 2014 Published by under Academics, Anger, AntiFeminist Asshole

Go read comments from Professor Isis-the-scientist today:

Science Has A Thomas Jefferson Problem...

Still, this doesn’t change the fact that the notion that “Science Has a Sexual Assault Problem” makes me salty. Life has a sexual assault problem. 26% of women scientists are assaulted in the field, but about that many women in general report sexual assault. A large portion of the attacks against scientists are perpetrated by someone the victim knew, but many women in general know their attackers. So, at the crux of the stunning and shocking and eye opening is something that I find more insidious – it is the belief that science is somehow different than society at large.

After all, surely rape and assault and violence are acts committed by poor people, and brown folks, NFL players and the occasional misguided frat boy. Certainly our logical, skeptical, professional and enlightened scientific brethren aren’t capable of the type of violence that Hope describes. Surely, tenured white women aren’t at risk for that type of violence.

Pretending that any type of person is "different", in the good way, is a suboptimal way to go through life.

People are horrible.

Given half a chance:

-Doods will try to rape women
-White cops will shoot innocent teen browns
-Dewds will try to cop a feel.
-Grant and manuscript and career/job reviewers will support candidates that seem most like themselves
-Guys will leer and objectify.
-Postdocs will slack and blame their PI
-Old wrinkly profs will delusionally think one of the young sweet grad student things will come back to their shitty hotel room at scientific meetings if their clumsy overtures are made to enough of them.
-PIs will exploit the hell out of their "trainees"
-Men will rape women.
-Institutions, meaning deanlets, will screw over their Golden Goose Faculty

People are horrible.

Act accordingly.

20 responses so far

I'm in my lane

Aug 14 2014 Published by under Anger

One of the best tweets respecting the situation in Ferguson Missouri this week came from music star John Legend.

Robert Cohen, AP. via http://www.ctpost.com/news/crime/article/Racial-tensions-are-not-new-in-St-Louis-suburb-5684204.php#photo-6716183

Robert Cohen, AP. via http://www.ctpost.com/news/crime/article/Racial-tensions-are-not-new-in-St-Louis-suburb-5684204.php#photo-6716183

Having an opinion, and expressing them, about the horrible things going on in our society is a rightful role of every citizen.

I'm in my lane too.

This is disturbingly reminiscent of pictures from the Civil Rights fights in the 1960s in the United States, is it not?

Join the American Civil Liberties Union.

Donate to the NAACP.

Contact your CongressCritter.

14 responses so far

Does Science magazine actually sell many copies at the newsstand?

Jul 16 2014 Published by under Anger

From

we see that Science magazine has really made a mistake with a cover picture.

The Science Careers subsection Editor Jim Austin wondered:

and then later wondered some more:
https://twitter.com/SciCareerEditor/status/489528456783224833

to which I observed that no, he had plenty of company:

Look, I am sure there will be plenty of folks more expert and concise and, dare I say it, civil than I am who will weigh in. But here we are.

This cover is bullshit. It objectifies the female form, whether one considers the subjects to be female or not. It is designed explicitly to draw the infamous male gaze.
Continue Reading »

46 responses so far

Thought of the Day

May 16 2014 Published by under Anger

We non-cheatfucks have to stick together and remind each other that not everyone gets ahead in science by faking data, abusing trainees and generally being the ass.

Some people are actually trying to do science right. Never forget that.

16 responses so far

This doesn't belong in science. At all.

Mar 21 2014 Published by under Academics, Anger, Diversity in Science

When I first started noticing the opportunity to submit a "Graphical Abstract" for my papers I was initially perplexed as to why I would bother. Then I realized that the Graphical Abstract (at Elsevier titles anyway) could be a way to get the primary data figure out in front of the paywall. So I thought maybe we should do that.

Some joker has apparently concluded that he should use the Graphical Abstract space for being a sexist jerk.

via Dr. Isis, via this article. Elsevier has promised to pull the image so it may not last at the journal link.

Hur, hur, dudes, hur, de-hur, de-hur.

As detailed by Dr. Zen, Pier Giorgio Righetti is an author on at least four articles with highly sexualized Graphical Abstracts. Professor Righetti apparently responded to a query about the wisdom of one of these images with:

I wonder if you have been trained in the Vatican. As you claim to be a professor of Physiology, let me alert you that this image is physiology at its best!

This sounds remarkably like Dario Mastripieri who famously lamented the lack of attractive "super-model type" women at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Neuroscience on his Facebook page. This sexualization of women in a professional scientific and/or academic context has to stop. This is harassment of women in science. It lets all women in this job sector know that these dudes, senior figures with some influence mind you, see them as nothing other than potential sexual conquests. It is unfair, it is rude, it is detrimental to science and it is utterly unacceptable.

Professor Righetti  is on the Editorial Board of several journals, including the offending Journal of Proteomics where he is listed as the expert under the heading of "Proteomics of Body Fluids and Proteomic Technologies". Eww.  And it gets better. @Drew_lab queried the Journal's EIC Juan Calvete and received a dispiriting response.

At least it wasn't a complete brush off such as Professor Righetti gave. But it isn't a whole lot better.

I hope to settle the case as soon as possible to devote to the lab, which is what should take me up most of the day.

...this translates in my ear to "this is some absolute triviality and sure, sure, we'll take down the images but really don't you people have better things to worry about?"

Not really, no. The EIC Calvete has himself identified why this is the case. All scientists would prefer to use their time and energy in ways that are devoted to lab business. Unfortunately, reality intervenes. And when male scientists are hitting on, slavering over, disrespecting, leering at, joking about and generally treating female scientists as property, this takes away from the energy the women (and indeed other men who have to witness this crap) have available to devote to science.

So what would really be great is if an EIC like Calvete identified this sort of inappropriate image (hint: it IS inappropriate, not "may be inappropriate") in advance and prevented it from being published in the first place. It would be great if authors such as Righetti avoiding submitting these things. It would be great if Professors like Mastripieri kept their nasty little observations locked up tight inside their own heads.

 

Now go read Isis' post. Reason #140 Why Sexist Bullshit in Academia is Not Okay

13 responses so far

I'm sorry....but you brought this on yourself, honey.

Jan 23 2014 Published by under Anger, AntiFeminist Asshole

The intro may be trigger-y for some.

Continue Reading »

98 responses so far

What would the NIH do if it wanted to make things really hard for Asian and Black PIs to get funded?

Jan 17 2014 Published by under Anger, Fixing the NIH, NIH, NIH Careerism, NIH funding

The takeaway message from the report of Ginther and colleagues (2011) on Race, Ethnicity and NIH Research Awards can be summed up by this passage from the end of the article:

Applications from black and Asian investigators were significantly less likely to receive R01 funding compared with whites for grants submitted once or twice. For grants submitted three or more times, we found no significant difference in award probability between blacks and whites; however, Asians remained almost 4 percentage points less likely to receive an R01 award (P < .05). Together, these data indicate that black and Asian investigators are less likely to be awarded an R01 on the first or second attempt, blacks and Hispanics are less likely to resubmit a revised application, and black investigators that do resubmit have to do so more often to receive an award.

Recall that these data reflect applications received for Fiscal Years 2000 to 2006.

Interestingly, we were just discussing the most recent funding data from the NIH with a particular focus on the triaged applications. A comment on the Rock Talk blog of the OER at NIH was key.

I received a table of data covering A0 R01s received between FY 2010 and FY2012 (ARRA funds and solicited applications were excluded). Overall at NIH, 2.3% of new R01s that were “not scored” as A0s were funded as A1s (range at different ICs was 0.0% to 8.4%), and 8.7% of renewals that were unscored as A0s were funded as A1s (range 0.0% to 25.7%).

I noted the following for a key distinction between new and competing-continuation applications.

The mean and selected ICs I checked tell the same tale, i.e., that Type 2 apps have a much better shot at getting funded after triage on the A0. NIDA is actually pretty extreme from what I can tell- 2.8% versus 15.2%. So if there is a difference in the A1 resubmission rate for Type 1 and Type 2 (and I bet Type 2 apps that get triaged on A0 are much more likely to be amended and resubmitted) apps, the above analysis doesn't move the relative disadvantage around all that much. However for NIAAA the Type 1 and Type 2 numbers are closer- 4.7% versus 9.8%. So for NIAAA supplicants, a halving of the resubmission rate for Type 1 might bring the odds for Type 1 and Type 2 much closer.

So look. If you were going to try to really screw over some category of investigators you would make sure they were more likely to be triaged and then make it really unlikely that a triaged application could be revised into the fundable range. You could stoke this by giving an extra boost to triaged applications that had already been funded for a prior interval....because your process has already screened your target population to decrease representation in the first place. It's a feed-forward acceleration.

What else could you do? Oh yes. About those revisions, poorer chances on the first 1-2 attempts and the need for Asian and black PIs to submit more often to get funded. Hey I know, you could prevent everybody from submitting too many revised versions of the grant! That would provide another amplification of the screening procedure.

So yeah. The NIH halved the number of permitted revisions to previously unfunded applications for those submitted after January 25, 2009.

Think we're ever going to see an extension of the Ginther analysis to applications submitted from FY2007 onward? I mean, we're seeing evidence in this time of pronounced budgetary grimness that the NIH is slipping on its rather overt efforts to keep early stage investigator success rates similar to experienced investigators' and to keep women's success rates similar to mens'.

The odds are good that the plight of African-American and possibly even Asian/Asian-American applicants to the NIH has gotten even worse than it was for Fiscal Years 2000-2006.

26 responses so far

NIH Blames the Victim

Jan 16 2014 Published by under Anger, Fixing the NIH, NIH, NIH Careerism

Just look at this text from RFA-RM-13-017:

The overarching goal of the Diversity Program Consortium is to enhance the diversity of well-trained biomedical research scientists who can successfully compete for NIH research funding and/or otherwise contribute to the NIH-funded workforce. The BUILD and NRMN initiatives are not intended to support replication or expansion of existing programs at applicant institutions (for example, simply increasing the number of participants in current NIH-funded research training or mentoring programs would not be responsive to this funding announcement).

The three forgoing major initiatives share one thing in common: Make the black PIs better in the future.

The disparity we've been talking about? That is clearly all the fault of the current black PIs....they just aren't up to snuff.

Specifics? also revealing

 

Goals for the NRMN include the following:

  • Working with the Diversity Program Consortium to establish core competencies and hallmarks of success at each stage of biomedical research careers (i.e., undergraduate, graduate, postdoctoral, early career faculty).

  • Developing standards and metrics for effective face-to-face and online mentoring.

  • Connecting students, postdoctoral fellows, and faculty in the biomedical research workforce with experienced mentors, including those with NIH funding, both in person and through online networks.

  • Developing innovative strategies for mentoring and testing efficacy of these approaches.

  • Active outreach is expected to be required to draw mentees into the network who otherwise would have limited access to research mentors.

  • Developing innovative and novel methods to teach effective mentoring skills and providing training to individuals who participate as mentors in the NRMN.

  • Providing professional development activities (grant writing seminars, mock study sections, etc.) and biomedical research career “survival” strategies, and/or facilitating participation in existing development opportunities outside the NRMN.

  • Enhancing mentee access to information and perceptions about biomedical research careers and funding opportunities at the NIH and increasing understanding of the requirements and strategies for success in biomedical careers through mentorship.

  • Creating effective networking opportunities for students, postdoctoral fellows, and early career faculty from diverse backgrounds with the larger biomedical research community.

  • Enhancing ability of mentees to attain NIH funding.

To my eye, only one of these comes even slightly close to recognizing that there are biases in the NIH system that work unfairly against underrepresented PIs.

68 responses so far

On the qualifications for a science PHD degree

Dec 03 2013 Published by under Academics, Anger, Mentoring, Postgraduate Training

Namnezia has initiated an interesting conversation on the criteria for awarding a PhD in the sciences. A commenter over there alleged a set of rules that is nearly impossible for me to believe is true. RX claims:

No official requirements for my PhD program, it's up to the PI.
My lab is crazy. Here's the requirement: total first author impact factor: 30, total pages of paper: 20. The first graduate of my lab got 1 Neuron and 1 Nature Neuroscience paper. All the rest graduates tend to follow this pattern.

This is one reason it shouldn't be left up to the PI, there is a reason doctoral committees and doctoral program rules exist.

Go Play at the Take it to the Bridge blog.

No responses yet

« Newer posts Older posts »