Does anybody want to be president? Anyone?

(by proflikesubstance) Mar 02 2015

No, I'm not taking on the 2016 election at this stage. Rather, I'm interested in a growing trend I'm seeing across a few scientific societies I work within. I've run the nominations side of a society before and I'm familiar with the process of getting people to agree to put their names on a ballot. Some people are happy to be nominated and others begrudgingly accept, but generally you can get good people on board.

I'm starting to see a change is the nominations process that can only be described as "more desperate'. It used to take asking about twice the number of people you planned to have on the ballot in order to get enough yeses. Recently nomination committees are reaching further and further for ideas. The churn through potential candidates seems to be at an all time high. Why?

People appear to be declining society service for the simple reason that they have devoted their "extra" time to submitting proposals. If you want to nominate someone who is research active, it is damn near impossible to get people to agree to be named. A lot of the names I'm starting to see on ballots are either deanlets who aren't running labs or fresh meat (just post-tenure) who are naive enough to agree (See: Me, last year).

Whereas I am all sorts of in favor of societies getting a broader swath of people involved (All middle-aged white guy ballot? Um, no thanks.) it appears as though a lot of folks are starting to batten down the hatches and avoid service they would have previously said yes too. My poll is wildly anecdotal, so I would be curious whether others are seeing something similar.

Will there be a long-term affect here? I have no idea.

2 responses so far

A formula for making a terrible argument

(by proflikesubstance) Feb 12 2015

Last night I was browsing twitter and saw something that popped up in my timeline a few times. I won't link to the exact tweet because I've seen virtually the same on from a dozen different people, but the formula will be very recognizable:

(My experience is THIS)+(Other people say THAT, which =/= my experience) = THAT doesn't happen.

It's a common argument writ large (hell, I'm sure I've done it too), but it's transparently dumb. You're saying your anecdata is all that matters and others are clearly wrong based on your experience and possibly that of your echo chamber colleagues.

In this particular case the topic was open access science and getting scooped. There is enormous variance among fields in how data are treated, the level of backstabbing that is common and what is at stake. It is entirely possible that your corner of science is all about sharing and love and drum circles. In that case, I'm willing to bet your opinions are shared by others in your group and a common topic of conversation at meetings, etc., is "If everyone just did what we do everything would be better!"

Maybe you're right. It's possible being able to see everyone's data and draft manuscripts would be the best thing that ever happened in science. Or maybe it wouldn't. Maybe in you field it's hard to actually scoop someone. Maybe it's not crowded enough for people to be able to without standing out. But are you confident that's the case across science?

As I wrote last night, I think all True Believers, regardless of their cause, should be taken with a massive grain of salt. More often than not, anyone who "knows what's best for everyone else" has not stood on the best side of history. Personally, I think the fear of being scooped is disproportionate to the risk, and I act accordingly. I've heard some fantastically contrived stories from colleagues who believed they were intentionally scooped, however, I've also watched it happen on more than one occasion. Even if the risk is low, who decides what is acceptable risk for someone else to take?

Allowing people the right to gauge their own comfort level with the openness of their science, in their field and their situation is something my colleagues have earned from me.

7 responses so far

Devastating

(by proflikesubstance) Feb 05 2015

Folks, please go offer your support for Alan Townsend, who could use it right now.

No responses yet

Teach your way to tenure?

(by proflikesubstance) Feb 04 2015

There appears to be a new trend sweeping through the basic sciences. Basically the equation is simple: fewer grants means fewer Assistant prof awardees, thus fewer successful tenure cases. That is, UNLESS tenure is evaluated differently.

I've been hearing more and more about biology departments taking a different tack with new PIs, given the current funding environment. The idea is that since federal funds are harder to come by, we have to insulate assistant profs by strengthening their tenure portfolios in other ways. Easiest way to do that? Why teaching, of course! A robust teaching portfolio and a history of applying for grants* is apparently going to be enough to clear the tenure bar in some places.

Hmmmmm....

Dunno about this, folks. My first issue with it is that the outside evaluators almost never weigh in on non-research topics. Obviously the candidate's letter would go out of it's way to point to the increased teaching load and expectations, but I still don't know how this would play.

Obviously this would put new PIs at a greater disadvantage when it comes to getting their research programs started. There would be less time for mentoring lab trainees and one bad postdoc or student could sink the ship. I have heard that places are upping their start-up packages to compensate for this, but no one can replace the PI's time spent working with trainees. Even being able to afford a tech for 3 or 4 years doesn't fix that.

The cynical part of me looks at the equation and sees the overhead gap being replaced by butts in seats. I get it, each department and college needs to find a way to make their numbers. However, this looks like a short-term fix with long-term repercussions. But in our system of transient administrators, I wonder whether the goals of tomorrow are important today.

Whereas I am not opposed to finding different ways to evaluate tenure and balancing a department with people on different parts of the teaching - research spectrum, this shift seems to be forcing it in a way that may not be to a department's long-term advantage.

*And presumably getting promising feedback, not just consistent triage.

12 responses so far

Spreading those grant aps around

(by proflikesubstance) Jan 08 2015

It's always the simple questions, right?

This is an important question and, with funding rates set to "career-wrecker" levels, you need to know how to maximize your chances. The responses were varied on this question, so here's my take:

1) You can absolutely send similar proposals to different agencies. In fact, NSF specifically asks you whether the proposal you are submitting has also been submitted elsewhere. This can actually bring up co-funding opportunities with other agencies.

However, you need to realize that if two agencies fund the same project independently, you can only accept one award. Period. Doing otherwise is called fraud and gets you in a world of shit.

2) When it comes to submitting for institutional pots of money, pretty much anything goes. In the overwhelming number of cases an institution will not have money available to complete an entire project that you are shopping to a major federal funding agency. However, it will provide money to generate preliminary data towards that project. And if the federal award is granted and the projects overlap too much, your institution will be more than happy to stop payment on the internal award and accept the federal money. That can be worked out.

Most labs in basic sciences will have 2-4 projects, with varying levels of overlap. Spreading grant proposals for those projects around as widely as possible is just good business. The chances of having a project simultaneously funded right now by multiple agencies are so low as to be unconcerning. If you are worried about it, then make the two proposals different enough that both could be defensibly accepted. But one cannot afford to write a new proposal for every deadline.

4 responses so far

The grant game: Momma said there'de be days like this

(by proflikesubstance) Dec 11 2014

Lot of NSF BIO folks are getting feedback on their grants right now. As expected, most of it is bad news.

Merry Christmas.

But lest we forget, those of you getting rejections are in great company. We're slogging through a historically lean time and this shit is just hard right now. We hear about people's successes, often without seeing the trail of rejections that got them there.

The reason I started this blog way back when I was bright-eyed and bushy tailed, rather than the jaded dough ball I am today, was to provide an unvarnished view of (hopefully) getting to tenure. Even in the worst of times, when I really thought I was never going to make it, I tried to be honest. I did that because, at the time, I didn't see a resources out there that told the whole story and not just what shows up on the CV. Success is visible to everyone, failure remains in the shadows.

Making it as a research scientist right now requires persistence. The ONLY reason I've been semi-successful is because I got back up every. damn. time. I don't have better ideas than my colleagues. I'm not smarter than they are. I don't have the pedigree or awards many of them have. But it turns out I can take a punch pretty well. I'm not alone.

So if you're getting bad news right now, scream, cry, drive around listening to country ballads, or whatever else you need to do. But turn that thing back around. If you have to change the focus, do it. If you have to add a section to make a case for feasibility, dig in. Sulk for a day or two, then figure out what you need to fix and get it back in.

You're only knocked out when you don't get off the mat.

19 responses so far

Flipping a classroom or flipping out?

(by proflikesubstance) Dec 04 2014

Flipping the classroom: it's all the rage! Certainly there are enough data out there to support the case that students learn better in an active learning situation than a straight lecture. So obviously we should all be rushing out to modify our classes to fit a new paradigm, right?

At what cost? Superstar scientist, Meg Duffy, has a post up about flipping an intro bio classroom. Granted, 600 students is a rather extreme case, but the workload realities of this course change are real. It's clear she is seeing benefits of the transition, but it's also clear it is coming at a significant personal cost.

Will it be rewarded?

How does your university reward teaching? Does it? Does it care only for the end-of-semester student evaluations? If so, will flipping the classroom result in better evaluations? I don't know the answer, but I know that there is little correlation between how much the students learn and the tenor of their evaluation of the course.

For people in non-teaching focused institutions considering flipping their classroom, what is the incentive? To me, it is improving the retention of my students. Will that help at promotion time? Will that be recognized as an achievement by The Powers That Be? In many cases advancement is strongly tied to research output and teaching is considered only if the person falls in the "needs improvement zone". Your results may vary.

If using novel strategies to education comes at an enormous personal cost to educators, with little recognition for the effort, then our current incentive structure is unlikely to promote adoption of active learning strategies.

16 responses so far

Workload underachiever

(by proflikesubstance) Dec 03 2014

Workload at a university is a funny thing. There's no one-size-fits-all because there's a lot of variables. How much does someone teach? How much do they research? How big is (are) their class(es)? How big is their lab? What committees are they on? It's a puzzle and almost everyone thinks they are doing THE MOSTEST!

And here's where perception and reality do not always match: Some things are easier to bean count than others.

Classes are the ultimate in terms of ease of counting. There's clear data on class size and contact hours that can be compared across the board. Prof A teaches two 30 person classes and Prof B teaches 1 70 person class and co-teaches a smaller seminar. We can compare those directly.

Committees are harder, but once you add up the number of committees, the responsibility of the person on each committee and how often they meet, it's not too bad.

Research is tricky. Do we count the number of grants? The total $$ someone is bringing in? Do you count submission effort? Panel service? How about the number of students in the lab? Postdocs? Techs? Where do they fit? How about thesis committees? Papers? Does it matter where they are getting published? Adding to the mix is that all of these things are hard to compare across disciplines.

Generally this can be worked out with whoever is determining the workload. But the perception across the department may not reflect this. In my department I have noticed the perception that those who teach less due to their research efforts are somehow, "not pulling their weight".

Not surprisingly, I'm writing this because I want to avoid ending up in this situation. However, I am teaching under load for my department, but our level of grant support is on the higher end. So, when the departmental teaching load gets circulated for curriculum planning, are my colleagues going to think "he's not pulling his weight" or "that makes sense based on his research program"?

I am left trying to strategize. Do I develop that new course I've been thinking of? Do I just keep my head down until someone with influence on workload tells me to pick up my teaching? Does perception matter now that I have tenure? None of this is straight-forward and if I asked everyone in my department I would probably get n+1 opinions.

But for now, I am one class meeting away from sabbatical. It can't come soon enough.

4 responses so far

Apparently it's World Vasectomy Day!

(by proflikesubstance) Nov 07 2014

Apparently it's World Vasectomy Day, so I thought I would dust this off from a few years ago. Besides being my entre onto twitter (I had no idea what I was doing), this was an excellent decision for many reasons. Dudes, consider this as a great form of birth control and an incredibly easy and straight forward operation.

As should be clear by now, I was a bit busy yesterday afternoon having my vas deferens cut and cauterized. In an attempt to use my experience as a way to educate folks about the experience, I live tweeted the whole process, but since twitter is a fleeting medium, I thought I should summarize here as well.

Twitter reads from the bottom up in the images below, except in the "conversations" that read top down. Hey, I'm just the messenger.

My first appointment was about two weeks ago. The doctor briefly described the procedure and how he does it. I had specifically opted for the "no scalpel vasectomy" because the incision is small and recovery is supposed to be less. He told me that he had been doing the procedure for 16 years, which seemed like a decent amount of time to me. Then he told me to shave before my next appointment. After reading Abel's description of a dry shave, I was already ahead of the curve on this one. Having experienced the aftermath of the disposable razor quick shave after my tattoos, I knew that was not going to be a good thing.

But this is not an area I commonly shave and I was a bit worried about irritation. I didn't need razor burn to compound my post-op issues, so I thought about alternatives. CoR suggested waxing, but hell no. I decided to try Nair.

Having solved that problem, I was ready.

One thing I hate is being late. Seriously, I can't do it. The flip side to that, however, is that I often arrive too early for things. This happened yesterday when I got to the office 30 minutes before my appointment. Maybe not the best move when you're a little anxious about something.

I got called in about 5 minutes late and brought to the room, where I was unceremoniously given a paper sheet and told to undress. I assumed that the sheet was for covering me, but checked with the nurse to make sure. I didn't want her to come back in and be horrified that I was on a table covered by a glorified napkin when her intention was something entirely different. My assumption was correct.

With the doctor's blessing (although he said it was a first), I kept my phone with me for the procedure. The sheet was pulled aside and the nurse went to work on my member with a liberal dose of betadine. They slapped a grounding pad on my side for the cauterizing and off we went.

And then shit got real. Much like any procedure that is routine for the doctor, but not for the patient, it seemed like they got to work in a hurry. With the no scalpel procedure, they use an anesthetic "gun" instead of a needle for the local, which resembles an oversized stainless steel pen. The nurse fired it once so I knew what it would sound like and the noise was like a small cap gun. Braced for that, I was ready. The doctor said it would feel like being snapped with a rubber band, and that was basically the feeling.

After about 6 snaps on either side the doctor went to work, starting on the left. It was a very odd feeling, with some pulling that extended a bit up into my lower abdomen, but it wasn't painful. He finished up the left in a couple of minutes and then broke out the cauterizer.

Not even 4 minutes in and half done. No pain to this point either. In fact, there was very little pain throughout, even post-op. "Discomfort" is about the worst of it. Except...

At some point during the pulling and cutting on the right side they hit a patch that was not so numb. I think when my whole body jerked the doctor figured that out. However, I will say that it was more surprise and the reaction to "that sharp poke" I was nervously anticipating than actual pain. All additional local (and there was certainly some needed) was done by needle, but I never felt that at all. Then, back to work.

And as quickly as it started, it was over.

Laying on the tray were two 1cm section of vas, which the nurse placed in a jar for whatever reason. That might have been the strangest moment. I was given a bag with instructions and two "sample cups" and told to get dressed again. I did so gingerly, but only because I was concerned about pain, not because I was in any.

I was given a script for Oxy and an antibiotic, but haven't taken either. I settled on the couch with some ice and had a couple of beers, but that was it. I was getting around fine last night and even did the early morning feeding of the baby at 5:00am. After a shower and a bit more ice this morning I didn't see any reason not to go to work. Drop the Wee One off at daycare this morning and have been at my desk without incident.

The whole thing took about ten minutes. Yeah, it's a little nerve wracking and there is some discomfort, but there was almost no pain and I don't see any sign of complications at this point, nearly 24h post-op. I have no regrets and I would recommend the procedure to any guy thinking about it. I do not consider myself a tough guy by any stretch and the vasectomy was very straight-forward and easy.

I'm glad it's done, but I am more happy that we no longer (in a month or two) have to worry about an accidental pregnancy. I'm happy to have my wife get off The Pill, which she has taken for about half her life. I'm excited that I could do this for us and I encourage anyone who knows they are not going to have another child to sack up and get this done.

No responses yet

Trainees as easy open access cannon fodder

(by proflikesubstance) Nov 04 2014

Ladies and gentlemen, I have nothing against Open Access publishing. In fact, I take steps to ensure all my lab's publications are available to anyone, either in published or preprint form. I am happy to get our science out to as many people as possible and agree that open science is the way forward.

So why am I writing a post with a title like the one above? Because there's a difference between supporting open access and supporting OA journals that have little standing in the field.

Specifically, I'm talking about journals like PeerJ. I got into an argument on twitter this evening when someone with a tenure track job suggested that another person who is on the market publish there. The argument was rapid turn around, but the reality is that speed is not the issue if the trade-off is a publication that will not be counted.

Like it or not (and I don't), trainees are not in a position to dictate the terms in which they will be assessed. Hiring committees are unknown commodities and they almost certainly have a mix of people with different expectations on them. What I can promise you is that a publication in any unknown journal is barely going to register with the majority of hiring committees, as we currently stand.

Now, we can argue all night whether this is just or fair or right, or whateverthefuck, but it. is. reality. Feel free to test that reality all you want, but have a back-up plan. Unless you happen to be applying to a place that happens to be severely pro-OA and has a majority of people on the committee who feel that way, you'll need it.

And here's where the rubber hits the road: Feel free to be the campion of OA in your career. That's on you. But do not require that of others who have yet to attain the position you inhabit. There are labs in this world that can get away with publishing exclusively in OA journals that are not considered "high impact" and still place their trainees in TT positions. They do so on the reputation of the PI. But those labs are currently few and far between. Would it be great if that were not the case? Sure, but we live in today.

Again, we can harp on the ideals and what should be practice, but to ask trainees to suffer the consequences of your revolution is a mind-numbingly arrogant thing to do. They should not be held accountable for your religion.

9 responses so far

Older posts »