I woke up two hours early today with brain obsessing over our next research priorities, thanks to the meeting. Working as intended then.
For some reason I didn't get around to visiting a single exhibitor other than NIH. First time for everything, right?
It is really great to see so many of the online people I've met through blogging and to see them succeeding with their science and careers.
The postdocs who have left our department in recent years for faculty jobs are kicking all kinds of science booty and that is nice to see.
Talk to Program, talk to Program, talk to Program.......
Catching up with the science homie(s) that you've known since postdoc or grad school is good for the soul. Dedicate one night for that.
Don't bad talk anyone in the hearing of relative strangers.....really, you can't know who likes and respects who and science is very small. I know 30,000 attendees makes you think it is large but....it isn't.
Gossip about who is looking to find a new job....see above.
I ran into the AE who decided not to bother finding reviewers for our paper whilst at SfN and heroically, HEROICALLY people, managed not to demand immediate action.
A little bummed I missed the Backyard Brains folks this year...anybody see what shenanigans they are up to now?
You know when you go over to meet and butter up some PI, trainees? Don't worry, it's awkward from our end too.
It turns out that trolling someone else's lab from a meeting with the cool study you just thought of that THEY NEED TO GET ON RIGHT NOW is even better than doing it to your own lab.
Do NOT creep on junior female scientists.
Do NOT creep on female scientists.
Do NOT creep on ANYBODY at the Annual Meeting.
(Getting drunk is not an excuse, btw.)
Don't so much as say anything creepy on your Facebook or Twitter or out loud where anyone can hear you.
Let everyone get as much science out of the Meeting as they can without having to worry about what your nasty self is up to, eh?
There will be a minisymposium on synthetic drugs at the upcoming Annual Meeting of the Society for Neuroscience in Washington DC. You can find it on Tuesday, Nov 18, 2014, 1:30 PM - 4:00 PM in WCC Ballroom B.
571.Bath Salts, Spice, and Related Designer Drugs: The Science Behind the Headlines
Michael Baumann and Jenny Wiley have organized it, appropriately given their respective expertise with cathinones and cannabinoids, respectively.
The abstract reads:
Recently there has been an alarming increase in the nonmedical use of novel psychoactive substances known as “designer drugs.” Synthetic cathinones and synthetic cannabinoids are two of the most widely abused classes of designer drugs. This minisymposium presents the most up-to-date information about the molecular sites of action, pharmacokinetics and metabolism, and in vivo neurobiology of synthetic cathinones and cannabinoids.
Looks to be a can't-miss session for those of you who are interested in these drug classes.
I'll extend my usual no-promises offer.
If you either drop your presentation details in the comments here or email me (drugmnky at the google mail) I'll try to work it into my schedule.
If it is really cool (and I can understand it) I might even blog it.
Hope to catch up with old blog friends and meet a few new folks.
See y'all at BANTER.
This is the truest and best thing I have read on the internet today.
An email from current president of the Society for Neuroscience announced the intent of the society to launch a new Open Access journal. They are seeking an Editor in Chief, so if you know any likely candidates nominate them.
The Society for Neuroscience Council has appointed a Search Committee to recommend candidates to serve as editors-in-chief for two Society-published journals:
The Editor-in-Chief of The Journal of Neuroscience, to be appointed for a 5-year term beginning Jan. 1, 2015, after a period of transition with the current editor; and
The first Editor-in-Chief of a new online, open access neuroscience journal, expected to launch in late 2014, and temporarily referred to herein as “New Journal.” Please see the announcement here for more information about New Journal. This 5-year appointment will commence in the spring of 2014, to allow the new editor to be involved in decisions connected with the start-up of New Journal and the organizing of an initial editorial board.
The members of the Search Committee are: Moses Chao, Chair; Holly Cline; Barry Everitt; David Fitzpatrick; and Eve Marder.
The list of evaluation criteria may help you to think about who you should nominate.
In evaluating candidates for the editor-in-chief positions, the Search Committee will consider the following criteria:
previous editorial experience
adequate time flexibility to take on the responsibilities of editor-in-chief
a distinguished record of research in neuroscience
familiarity with online submission, peer review and manuscript tracking systems
ideas about novel approaches and receptivity to innovation during a time of great change in the scientific publishing field
service to and leadership in the neuroscience community (e.g., SfN committees)
evidence of good management skills and the ability to lead colleagues on an editorial board
for New Journal: the capacity to proactively engage on a start-up venture, and to innovate and lead in the creation of a high quality open access neuroscience journal, and guide it on a path to success
for The Journal of Neuroscience: the capacity to build on an established record of success, while continuing to evolve a leading journal in the field and take it to the next level
Interesting next step for the SfN. Obviously reflects some thinking that they may be left behind (even further, see diminishing reputation after the launch of Nature Neuroscience and Neuron) in the glorious New World Order of Open Access publication. Might just be a recognition that Open Access fees for a new journal when all the infrastructure is already there is going to be a cash cow for the Society from the beginning.
What I will be fascinated to see is where they pitch the New Journal* in terms of impact. Are they just trying to match JNeuro? Will they deliberately go a little lower down the feeding chain to avoid undercutting the flagship journal?
*my suggestion of Penfield must have been too esoteric a reference.....
This is my annual no-promises request for you, my Readers, to turn the tables.
I am interested in what you all have to say, scientifically.
So, if inclined drop your presentation details here in the comments* or send me an email. Drugmnky at the google mail.
I might stop by.
Also, there will be BANTER.
*your fellow readers may likewise be interested in your work
Those of us in the neurosciences are preparing for our largest annual scientific gathering. I like to remind you to attend to a certain little task to assist with the odds of obtaining NIH grant funding. This includes a little bit of homework on your part, so block out an hour or two with your coffee cup.
Part of the process of sustained NIH funding includes the long game of developing interpersonal relationships with the Program Officers that staff the NIH ICs of interest to our individual research areas. Sure, they do turn over a bit and may jump ICs but I've had some POs involved with my proposals for essentially the entire duration of my funded career to date.
Many scientists find the schmoozing process to be uncomfortable and perhaps even distasteful.
To this I can only reply "Well, do you want to get funded or not?".
This post originally went up Nov 12, 2008. I've edited a few things for links and content.
One of the most important things you are going to do during the upcoming SfN Annual Meeting in San Diego is to stroll around NIH row. Right?
I have a few thoughts for the trainees after the jump. I did mention that this is a long game, did I not? Continue Reading »