If the information firehose and intellectual go-juice of a Society for Neuroscience week leaves you mentally exhausted, you don't actually work those 60 hours a week you claim to work.
Archive for the '#FWDAOTI' category
They know they are wrong. The arguments on both sides have clarified the discussion and pointed the finger clearly at the powerful, the entitled, the entrenched and the beneficiaries.
In desperation they pull their imagined trump card.
"We can agree to disagree"
No, we really can't.
Some weaksauce low energy muppet just tried to shame me for being "easily amused".
Is that supposed to be cutting?
The alternative is either that you are humorless or too dumb to get the joke, right?
The Washington Post tells this tragic tale of woe:
In her nearly 2,500-word letter, Ben-Ora explained the complaints she had with Yelp, including how she was required to work for a year in customer service before she could move into another position.
"A whole year answering calls and talking to customers just for the hope that someday I’d be able to make memes and twitter jokes about food," she wrote.
In case you were wondering, yes, she did major in English, why do you ask?
She's poor*, and struggling and doesn't like it. Because the world should pay her six figures to write internet memes and shit. I guess. And this is all the fault of her employer somehow.
Because 80 percent of my income goes to paying my rent.
Nobody with a college degree can reasonably expect to move to the Bay area and have anyone feel sorry for them about not knowing what rent costs. The internet exists. You can check on that. Beforehand.
Let’s talk about those benefits, though. They’re great. I’ve got vision, dental, the normal health insurance stuff — and as far as I can tell, I don’t have to pay for any of it! Except the copays. $20 to see a doctor or get an eye exam or see a therapist or get medication.
Benefits? A mere $20 copay? ....and this is an outrageously bad sweatshop that she works for? ok.
Naturally, after posting her screed on Medium, the inevitable.
UPDATE: As of 5:43pm PST, I have been officially let go from the company.
Wasn't that what you wanted?
*from her remarks, it looks like she is making $20K takehome, fwiw.
i.e., "I'm better than the riffraff and now that I feel a tiny tinge of their pain it proves the entire system is broken".
Respected neuroscientist Leslie Vosshall has joined with Michael Eisen in the latest "science needs to be torn down and rebuilt" crusades.
This time it is over pre-print archives. These two think we all should submit manuscripts to some sort of public repository before submitting them to journals for publication.
— Michⓐel Eisen (@mbeisen) February 16, 2016
Someone kindly forwarded me a link to a puff-piece / character assassination on Professor Vosshall. I phrase it like that because, well, eye of the beholder, eh?
As a teenager in the early 1980s, Leslie Vosshall spent her summers in Woods Hole, Massachusetts. “My uncle is a scientist and he’d rent a lab there,” she says. “He always needed someone to come and do the glassware. It was a plum job, generally handed out via the nepotistic network...
“I was widely viewed as the most pathetic graduate student. I had no hint of any success for the first 6 years of my PhD..... Two years went by, then three, then four. The more vocal people in and around the lab told me I should just give up and go to law school.” ....“The litany of failures goes on and on.... “I can’t say I was the greatest experimentalist in the world. I made great cDNA libraries and I was really good at manual Sanger sequencing. But these techniques are now extinct. So it’s probably best I’m no longer at the bench.”
umm. okay. so how...?
Then her lab mates identified another mutation, in a gene called timeless, which also alters the flies’ circadian rhythms. Vosshall found that in timeless mutants,....Vosshall joined Richard Axel’s lab ...Then the Drosophila genome was sequenced and we teamed up with some bioinformaticists, also at Columbia. They sifted through the genome looking for all membrane proteins—and that’s how we found them. It was an 11th-hour save. When we went back through our freezers, which were filled with the thousands of clones we’d made, it turns out we actually had two of the receptors in our collection......“There have been maybe three moments in my career when I knew that I personally solved something.
Wow. Like I said, quite the character assassination. From a certain point of view. I mean this paints a picture, true or not, of a person of immense privilege who admits to be a crap scientist who never figured out anything on her own, leveraged just-happened-to-be-there in high-flying and no doubt copiously resourced labs into a few nice papers and BAM, off to a career of Glamourousness. Pretty damning.
This is the relevant part though.
“When I started in this business in 2000, if you wrote a good grant you would be funded. This is not the case now. I deal with it by not writing grants. I know it’s stupid and a bit pouty, but I just can’t stand the rejection.” And she doesn’t care for the current climate of rationing. Vosshall, now an HHMI investigator, had an NSF grant turned down in 2006—despite receiving near-perfect scores. She was later told that grants with lower scores were given priority because she had other sources of funding, where the other labs did not. “That’s not how it’s supposed to work. Is that how we run professional sports? ‘Let’s let this guy pitch. He’s not as good, but he hasn’t had a chance recently.’ This may work well in elementary school. But it is not how it’s supposed to work in science.”
I was in this business in 2000. The part about writing a good grant and getting funded is, in a word, bullshit. It's a lie and a No-True-Scotsman ploy.
We've been through this before. Her success and ease of launch was based on the Glam papers and the Glam pedigree, not her grant writing. Believe me*. All that changed is that finally, at some point, she started feeling the tiniest bit of reality that was faced by most** scientists.
Those other folks.
Who must not write "good" grants and so therefore they deserve what they get. But not her, ooooh no. If she has to face a "rejection" she's going to get all pouty. And instead of feeling grateful for a schweeeet HHMI dealio, complain about how she can't get even MORE support from the NSF (which worries about such things even more than does NIGMS or NIH as a whole if I have it right) it is an outrage. The entitlement just bleeds off this page of The Scientist.
And now, Vosshall is joining up with Michael Eisen to push pre-prints because the process of pushing her work into Glamour journals (7 Cell; 8 Nature; 4 Science of 78 pubs) is just too much work. The rejection (10 Neuron; 2 Nat Neuro tch, tch) must be really annoying. How dare anyone hold her to any sort of account for her offerings?
Clearly science is entirely broken and needs to be revolutionized.
I've convinced myself. This WAS a hit job. Nobody could possibly be this much of an asshole about science careers and their unbelievable run of self-described unearned privilege, could they? Right?
Real scientists don't need journal names to select faculty candidates: all 4 of my recent postdocs got faculty positions WITHOUT A PAPER
— Leslie Vosshall (@pollyp1) February 13, 2016
well yeah but when you come from a lab that pumps out the Glam...
Ugh so sick of acting as a gatekeeper and stonewaller and rejector and delayer as an editor for journals. After #ASAPbio, resigning from all
— Leslie Vosshall (@pollyp1) February 15, 2016
too good to Edit now? hmmm.
Now, I'm going to address myself to Professor Eisen, who I think mostly has his heart in the right place. He, Bernie-Sanders-like, wishes to start a popular revolutionary conflagration that will bring his fondest desires to pass. He knows, somewhere deep down, that he needs the masses on his side to make this happen. He walks quite a bit of his talk. Great. Love the apparent intention to make science go forward faster, better and more efficiently.
But dude. Mike. For realz here. You alienate the ever loving shit out of the masses of workaday scientists when you cozy up with privileged, selfish, Glam scientists of the realm who have no intention of making science better and are only after making it better for themselves. This hit job in The Scientist on Vosshall (surely it is, right?)....it describes precisely the kind of person you don't want to hook up with. The image you don't want to hook up with, regardless of the truth in the heart of any particular person (ahem). Because it guarantees you will fail.
Just like hooking up with Glam folks to gain immediate power seduced you into creating PLoS Glams instead of only PLoS ONE guaranteed that particular agenda would fail.
Turn to the Bernie side, Professor Eisen. Do what works for the masses and burn down the entire institution of Glamour science.
It's the only way to achieve your goal.
How much do you think it costs to generate the manuscript that is accepted for publication at your average Glam journal?
How do you align this with your views on fair distribution of research funding?
Many typos in a manuscript 1) pisses me off as a reviewer (not a mood you want me in) and 2) makes me question your science as well.
— Psyc Girl (@PsycGrrrl) September 16, 2015
I have never understood this nonsense. Ever. What do typographical errors on a manuscript or grant application have to do with the quality of the science or the scholarship. The thinking?
Copy editors can catch the typos in manuscripts.
Grants? You are on your own risking a failure to communicate your points. But a couple of typos leading some jackwagon to decide they can't trust the science based on this? Please.
I completely agree. A sloppily prepared manuscript reflects *really* badly on the authors. https://t.co/6mdXMFtAJH
— Dr. Dennis Eckmeier (@DennisEckmeier) September 17, 2015
Obsession over minor typos reflects *really* poorly on a reviewer. #forestnotseedlings
— Drug Monkey (@drugmonkeyblog) September 17, 2015
Then I remember that GOP American base voters are basically screeching macaques mobbing a vine they mistook for a snake.
— Drug Monkey (@drugmonkeyblog) September 16, 2015
A: "Strong assertion that this thing should be so!"
B: "What is the basis for your assertion?"
A: "hmmmina..hummina....umm WHAT IS THE BASIS FOR YOUR COUNTER CLAIM????"
I weep for science some days people. I really do.