Archive for the 'Careerism' category

sciwo on that ridiculous Science Careers advice

Jul 13 2015 Published by under Careerism, Gender, Tribe of Science

Science published a "Working Life" bit by Eleftherios P. Diamandis titled "Getting Noticed is Half the Battle"

sciwo is not impressed

I’d sum it up like this: “If you were a man 30 years ago and ignored your family in favor of work, you might have been privileged enough to get a faculty position without an open search.

No responses yet

STRIKE, STRIKE, STRIKE, POSTDOCS OF THE WORLD UNITE!!!!!!

Jul 10 2015 Published by under Careerism, Fixing the NIH, Postdoctoral Training

GDR:

Lastly, there IS one way to experimentally test how much a PD is worth, at least to PIs, and you are promoting that test, whether you know it or not. And that is a PD strike. I would love to see you discussing how spoiled PDs are in between gel runs because your PD is really not there. I think 50K/yr wouldn't sound that much then.

Go ahead dudes, you have nothing to lose but your chains.

22 responses so far

Will Obama's revamp of the overtime rules mean postdocs are paid more?

Jul 06 2015 Published by under Careerism, NIH Careerism, Postdoctoral Training

Justin Kiggins has launched the discussion at The Spectroscope.

Those postdocs who are salaried employees, however, are currently "exempt" from overtime pay if they make more than $23,660. The new rules mean that they will need a salary of at least $50,400. So if their institution is following the NIH standard, which sets a minimim of $42,840, it looks like they'll either need to get paid overtime for any work done over 40 hours or get a raise to meet the exemption requirements

Go on over and read, especially for the links to places you can comment on this rule prior to implementation.

184 responses so far

PhysioProffe on the conduct of science

Jun 25 2015 Published by under Careerism, Conduct of Science, NIH

go read:

Self-interested nepotistic shittebagges constantly assert this parade of horribles that if we don’t fund the right subset of scientists in today’s tight scientific funding environment (coincidentally them, their friends, their trainees, and their family members), then we are going to destroy scientific progress. This is because they are delusional......

No responses yet

(in)visible at scientific meetings

Jun 22 2015 Published by under Careerism, Scientific Meetings, Tribe of Science

Some scientists prefer to occupy scientific meeting space as the proverbial fly on the wall.

Rarely, if ever, comment at the microphone. They are not to be found gesticulating wildly to a small group of peers around the coffee table.

Others loom large. Constantly at the microphone for comment. Glad handing their buddies in every room before and after the session. Buttonholing POs at the slightest opportunity.

Someone just pointed this out to me, so I've been thinking about it.

Obviously nobody wants to end up being seen as a narcissistic blowhard who can't shut up and never has anything useful to say. 

But it is good to be known in your field*. And meeting visibility is part of that.   
__

*Cause and effect may not be simple here, I will acknowledge.

28 responses so far

Re-Repost: The funding is the science II, "Why do they always drop the females?"

The NIH has recently issued the first round of guidance on inclusion of Sex as a Biological Variable in future NIH research grants. I am completely behind the spirit of the initiative but I have concerns about how well this is going to work in practice. I wrote a post in 2008 that detailed some of the reasons that have brought us to the situation where the Director of the NIH felt he had to coauthor an OpEd on this topic. I believe these issues are still present, will not be magically removed with new instructions to reviewers and need to be faced head-on if the NIH is to make any actual progress on ensuring SABV is considered appropriately going forward.

The post originally appeared December 2, 2008.


The title quote came from one of my early, and highly formative, experiences on study section. In the course of discussing a revised application it emerged that the prior version of the application had included a sex comparison. The PI had chosen to delete that part of the design in the revised application, prompting one of the experienced members of the panel to ask, quite rhetorically, "Why do they always drop the females?"

I was reminded of this when reading over Dr. Isis' excellent post [Update: Original Sb post lost, I think the repost can be found here] on the, shall we say less pernicious, ways that the course of science is slanted toward doing male-based research. Really, go read that post before you continue here, it is a fantastic description.

What really motivated me, however, was a comment from the always insightful Stephanie Z:

Thank you. That's the first time I've seen someone address the reasons behind ongoing gender disparities in health research. I still can't say as it thrills me (or you, obviously), but I understand a bit better now.

Did somebody ring?

As I pointed out explicitly at least once ([Update: Original 2007 post]), research funding has a huge role in what science actually gets conducted. Huge. In my book this means that if one feels that an area of science is being systematically overlooked or minimized, one might want to take a close look at the manner by which science is funded and the way by which science careers are sustained as potential avenues for systematic remedy.

Funding

There are a couple of ways in which the generalized problems with NIH grant review lead to the rhetorical comment with which I opened the post. One very common StockCritique of NIH grant review is that of an "over ambitious" research plan. As nicely detailed in Isis' post, the inclusion of a sex comparison doubles the groups right off the bat but even more to the point, it requires the inclusion of various hormonal cycling considerations. This can be as simple as requiring female subjects to be assessed at multiple points of an estrous cycle. It can be considerably more complicated, often requiring gonadectomy (at various developmental timepoints) and hormonal replacement (with dose-response designs, please) including all of the appropriate control groups / observations. Novel hormonal antagonists? Whoops, the model is not "well established" and needs to be "compared to the standard gonadectomy models", LOL >sigh<.

manWomanControlPanel.jpg
Grant reviewers prefer simplicity
Keep in mind, if you will, that there is always a more fundamental comparison or question at the root of the project, such as "does this drug compound ameliorate cocaine addiction?" So all the gender comparisons, designs and groups need to be multiplied against the cocaine addiction/treatment conditions. Suppose it is one of those cocaine models that requires a month or more of training per group? Who is going to run all those animals ? How many operant boxes / hours are available? and at what cost? Trust me, the grant proposal is going to take fire for "scope of the project".

Another StockCritique to blame is "feasibility". Two points here really. First is the question of Preliminary Data- of course if you have to run more experimental conditions to establish that you might have a meritorious hypothesis, you are less likely to do it with a fixed amount of pilot/startup/leftover money. Better to work on preliminary data for two or three distinct applications over just one if you have the funds. Second aspect has to do with a given PIs experience with the models in question. More opportunity to say "The PI has no idea what s/he is doing methodologically" if s/he has no prior background with the experimental conditions, which are almost always the female-related ones. As we all know, it matters little that the hormonal assays or gonadectomy or whatever procedures have been published endlessly if you don't have direct evidence that you can do it. Of course, more latitude is extended to the more-experienced investigator....but then s/he is less likely to jump into gender-comparisons in a sustained way in contrast to a newly minted PI.

Then there are the various things under grantspersonship. You have limited space in a given type of grant application. The more groups and comparisons, the more you have to squeeze in with respect to basic designs, methods and the interpretation/alternative approaches part. So of course you leave big windows for critiques of "hasn't fully considered...." and "it is not entirely clear how the PI will do..." and "how the hypothesis will be evaluated has not been sufficiently detailed...".

Career

Although research funding plays a huge role in career success, it is only part of the puzzle. Another critical factor is what we consider to be "great" or "exciting" science in our respective fields.

The little people can fill in the details. This is basically the approach of GlamourMagz science. (This is a paraphrase of something the most successful GlamourMagz PI I know actually says.) Cool, fast and hot is not compatible with the metastasizing of experimental conditions that is an inevitable feature of gender-comparison science. Trouble is, this approach tends to trickle down in various guises. Lower (than GlamourMag) impact factor journals sometimes try to upgrade by becoming more NS-like (Hi, J Neuro!). Meticulous science and exacting experimental designs are only respected (if at all) after the fact. Late(r) in someone's career they start getting props on their grant reviews for this. Early? Well the person hasn't yet shown the necessity and profit for the exhaustive designs and instead they just look...unproductive. Like they haven't really shown anything yet.

As we all know splashy CNS pubs on the CV trump a sustained area of contribution in lower journals six ways to Sunday. This is not to say that nobody will appreciate the meticulous approach, they will. Just to say that high IF journal pubs will trump. Always.

So the smart young PI is going to stay away from those messy sex-differences studies. Everything tells her she should. If he does dip a toe, he's more likely to pay a nasty career price.
This is why NIH efforts to promote sex-comparison studies are necessary. Promoting special funding opportunities are the only way to tip the equation even slightly more favorable to the sex-differences side. The lure of the RFA is enough to persuade the experienced PI to write in the female groups. To convince the new PI that she might just risk it this one time.

My suspicion is that it is not enough. Beyond the simple need to take a stepwise approach to the science as detailed by Isis, the career and funding pressures are irresistible forces.

9 responses so far

Dear Advice Column, What Do I Do When A Premier Journal In My Field Is Sexism Apologetic?

Jun 01 2015 Published by under Careerism

Science Careers has an advice column called Ask Alice with Alice Huang.

She got one spectacularly wrong. It was pulled from the main site but can be viewed in archive here. I'll reprint the text in case that disappears for some reason.

 

Dear Alice,

Q: I’ve just joined a new lab for my second postdoc. It’s a good lab. I’m happy with my project. I think it could really lead to some good results. My adviser is a good scientist, and he seems like a nice guy. Here’s the problem: Whenever we meet in his office, I catch him trying to look down my shirt. Not that this matters, but he’s married. 

What should I do? 

—Bothered

Dear Bothered,

A: Imagine what life would be like if there were no individuals of the opposite—or preferred—sex. It would be pretty dull, eh? Well, like it or not, the workplace is a part of life.

It’s true that, in principle, we’re all supposed to be asexual while working. But the kind of behavior you mention is common in the workplace. Once, a friend told me that he was so distracted by an attractive visiting professor that he could not concentrate on a word of her seminar. Your adviser may not even be aware of what he is doing.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) defines unlawful sexual harassment as “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical harassment of a sexual nature.” It goes on to say that “harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).” I’m not an attorney, but to me the behavior you’re describing doesn’t seem unlawful by this standard.

Some definitions of sexual harassment do include inappropriate looking or staring, especially when it’s repeated to the point where the workplace becomes inhospitable. Has it reached that point? I don’t mean to suggest that leering is appropriate workplace behavior—it isn’t—but it is human and up to a point, I think, forgivable. Certainly there are worse things, including the unlawful behaviors described by the EEOC. No one should ever use a position of authority to take sexual advantage of another.

As long as your adviser does not move on to other advances, I suggest you put up with it, with good humor if you can. Just make sure that he is listening to you and your ideas, taking in the results you are presenting, and taking your science seriously. His attention on your chest may be unwelcome, but you need his attention on your science and his best advice.

—Alice

I'll suggest that whenever someone is seeking advice (even from an advice column) and says "whenever we meet..." that it suggests that this behavior is repeated, unwelcome, offensive and is making the workplace inhospitable.

I also think that one-on-one personal advice along the lines of "well just how bad is it?" and trying to make sure the person isn't on a hair trigger for some reason is totally inappropriate for an advice column in ScienceCareer from the journal Sciences. This is a high profile venue and this issue needs to be dealt with under the assumption of broad generalization.

This advice reads as yet another excuse for leering, sexist and/or harassing behavior on the part of professors who should know better.

Look, I know a great number of normal, decent, nonharassing people fear the spectre of being brought up on career charges for an inadvertent glance at a deep bit of cleavage. Being the heteronormative male raised in US culture that I am, yeah, I am to be found looking at bits of other people's anatomy from time to time. A lot of it feels subconscious, automatic and reflexive (NOT MY FAULT!).

I get it. Nobody feels like a person should be run out of their job for a stray look.

But my experience suggests that the vast majority of these cases reveal that women are incredibly tolerant and reluctant to cry "harassment" based on the unintentional stray look. I tend to suspect that by the time a woman is talking about a mentor leering at her in solo settings there is a good chance the behavior is well beyond normal, inadvertent glancing.

I don't know this for sure, of course. I certainly don't think that I leer. I think that I keep my eyes to myself in a professional setting as best I am able and I think that I consciously notice when my eyes have strayed and take effort to knock that shit off. But perhaps I have made employees uncomfortable and hopefully if I am ever made aware of that I would apologize profusely. At the very least I would try to defend myself without trying to pretend it was all in her head and generally gaslighting the remotest possibility that something I did might have made an underling uncomfortable.

So I think Ask Alice has run off the rails on this one. Our default, public, high profile response to situations like this should not be to suggest the victim should merely put up with it as "human and...forgivable" behavior. Our default response should be to assume that by the time someone complains about it, the odds are that the behavior is repeated and severe enough to be offensive. The mentor is already not paying sufficient attention to "your science" and his duties to provide "his best advice". Putting up with the leering isn't going to change that.

Related from Zen:

Breaking brand: Science magazine’s latest self-inflicted crisis

UPDATE: Science Careers Editor Note on pulling the piece:

The Ask Alice article, “Help! My adviser won’t stop looking down my shirt,” on this website has been removed by Science because it did not meet our editorial standards, was inconsistent with our extensive institutional efforts to promote the role of women in science, and had not been reviewed by experts knowledgeable about laws regarding sexual harassment in the workplace. We regret that the article had not undergone proper editorial review prior to posting. Women in science, or any other field, should never be expected to tolerate unwanted sexual attention in the workplace.

Good call.

66 responses so far

Stupid CV Tricks: Is a job talk an invited seminar?

May 27 2015 Published by under Academics, Careerism, Conduct of Science

My esteemed colleague says no:

My view is that a job talk is more prestigious than a mere invited seminar due to the focal competition and review.

So sure, put those down in the same CV category as non-job-talk seminar invitations.

42 responses so far

Thoughts on NIH grant strategy from Associate Professor H. Solo

We spend a fair amount of time talking about grant strategy on this blog. Presumably, this is a reflection of an internal process many of us go through trying to decide how to distribute our grant writing effort so as to maximize our chances of getting funded. After all we have better things to do than to write grants.

So we scrutinize success rates for various ICs, various mechanisms, FOAs, etc as best we are able. We flog RePORTER for evidence of which study sections will be most sympathetic to our proposals and how to cast our applications so as to be attractive. We worry about how to construct our Biosketch and who to include as consultants or collaborators. We obsess over how much preliminary data is enough (and too much*).

This is all well and good and maybe, maybe....perhaps....it helps.

But at some level, you have to follow your gut, too. Even when the odds seem overwhelmingly bad, there are going to be times when dang it, you just feel like this is the right thing to do.

Submitting an R01 on very thin preliminary data because it just doesn't work as an R21 perhaps.

Proposing an R03 scope project even if the relevant study section has only one** of them funded on the RePORTER books.

Submitting your proposal when the PO who will likely be handling it has already told you she hates your Aims***.

Revising that application that has been triaged twice**** and sending it back in as a A2asA0 proposal.

I would just advise that you take a balanced approach. Make your riskier attempts, sure, but balance those with some less risky applications too.

I view it as....experimenting.

__
*Just got a question about presenting too much preliminary data the other day.

**of course you want to make sure there is not a structural issue at work, such as the section stopped reviewing this mechanism two years ago.

***1-2%ile scores have a way of softening the stony cold heart of a Program Officer. Within-payline skips are very, very rare beasts.

****one of my least strategic behaviors may be in revising grants that have been triaged. Not sure I've ever had one funded after initial triage and yet I persist. Less so now than I used to but.....I have a tendency. Hard headed and stupid, maybe.

13 responses so far

Why are you a scientist? 

Apr 27 2015 Published by under Academics, Careerism, Conduct of Science

From the Twitts.....

Me, I think I never got past "I wonder what that does?" 

33 responses so far

Older posts »