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.

18 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.

14 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

Curious about what your NSF PO is doing right now?

(by proflikesubstance) Nov 04 2014

Many of you are waiting to hear back from NSF right now. Full proposal panels in DEB and IOS have met and your fate is sealed... though you don't know what it is yet.

IOS Program Officer, Michelle Elekonich, guest blogged here two years ago and in Part 3, gave a run down of the funding process. If you want to know why your PO is making you sweat it out, that may provide some background.

And while you're clicking, Part 1 and Part 2 of Michelle's contributions are good reading as well.

6 responses so far

How do you structure a job talk?

(by proflikesubstance) Oct 28 2014

Many people applying for academic jobs this season are well into the process. Interviews are happening across the country and more are on the way. If you're putting together a talk for an on campus interview, you'll want to make sure you're communicating to your audience the information they'll need to make a decision. Obviously, it's not all going to come down to your talk, but many faculty will only see you during this time.

The most critical piece, IMO, is figuring out whether you need to include a full Future Directions section in your feature talk. I've seen it done several ways, but what you present on the work you plan to do at the hiring institution is obviously the key. In my current job, the future directions was a separate talk. I still gave a 5 minute compressed version for those who wouldn't see the second talk, but it was just a teaser.

If you're asked to put everything in one talk, I would roughly break it down like:

30 min of highlighting what you have done

20 min of talking about what you will do

10 min for questions

People often say that their completed work is either too much or too diverse to cover in 30 or 40 or 50 minutes. This is good and probably why you are being interviewed. However, it is up to YOU to create a narrative about who you are and what you bring to the table. What led you from one training environment to another*? What is the flow to your science and what you have accomplished? What are you going to take from that and apply to your new awesome lab?

Your audience should come away with a feel for the flow and trajectory of your career. That is your take home for them. You want them to think "Wow, she did all that and is ready to really take off on an original path!"

Look at the structure of your talk and make sure that is front and foremost.

 

 

 

* Or, what is the best possible spin you can apply post hoc?

18 responses so far

Can one grant even get its own science done?

(by proflikesubstance) Oct 24 2014

The current issues with federal science funding are well documented. Anyone familiar with the science blogging world or running their own lab will be way too familiar with the downturn in support for science in the US. But even before the overall funding decline, there's been a stagnation that is really catching up with us.

Drugmonkey has talked about the static modular budget at NIH. Briefly, the budget for your average NIH R01 hasn't changed in years, whereas all the costs have increased. Consumables, salary, tuition, travel, services... they are all more expensive than the were 10 years ago. Substantially.

NSF is similarly impacted. A big difference here is that indirect rates are calculated into the overall NSF proposal budget. Guess what else has risen 10% since I started my position? So, we have costs of everything climbing and a static budget. The reality is that we can't afford the same work we could 5 and 10 years ago. Period.

When writing a proposal there's pressure to keep the budget down. As such, we whittle away (often negotiating for crumbs with collaborators on the proposal). Once funded, the budget is almost certainly cut by some amount, further reducing the buying power. NIH grants can even be cut substantially during the funded period!

But, in the increasingly competitive environment, does anybody dial the science in their proposals back? Hell. No. The demand is higher than ever.

So here is the reality of running a lab right now: You need multiple sources of funding that can offset one another. I am watching people taking the one grant-at-a-time approach and falling short in big ways. Without substantial resources from somewhere that allow you to add personnel or leverage grant funds, completing the work as written gets harder by the day.

Think broadly, my friends. Collaborate. Leverage funds against departmental, college or university resources. Apply for local money that will allow you to offload a salary for a bit. Be on the lookout for these additional pots of money, because a single grant can easily collapse under its own weight these days.

6 responses so far

What do you want to know about writing a preproposal?

(by proflikesubstance) Oct 22 2014

I've been tasked by my Research Office to give a presentation on writing NSF preproposals. This is a topic I've written about before, but I am curious what types of questions are out there. If you were attending such a presentation, what information would you hope to hear about?

6 responses so far

Despite the name, Teaching Assistantships support the research mission

(by proflikesubstance) Oct 08 2014

For a typical Biology Department, TAs are a critical resource. Teaching Assistants run most of the labs in the department, and in some cases run recitations or help grade exams in large classes. In most places I have been the TAs are limited in the number of hours they can work in a given week, usually in the range of 20h/wk. TA support comes with pay that covers the stipend, and importantly, the tuition and fringe of the student for the semesters they are teaching. In that sense, their major professor does not need to support them off grants while they TA, but their research time is limited by the contact hours, lab prep and grading.

Since many biology departments are largely geared towards NSF funding, TA support allows for more students to be involved in a project than can be supported directly from a single grant. In my college, for instance, the Dean's office will match a semester of TA support for every semester or RA support a PI has on a grant. This allow us to be a little flexible in our budgeting, since the actually dollar amount of federal grants has not climbed appreciably in quite some time, whereas inflation and institutional overhead rates (which IS counted into the budget of an NSF grant) have increased, unabated.

Therefore, we have graduate students performing an important role in the teaching mission of a department as a way to directly supplement the research mission of the department.

And this is where it can get tricky, folks. Because not every class runs the same way and not every professor understands the big picture. If you think of TAs as graduate students who are teaching to supplement their research time, you will have very different expectations than if you see a TA as a junior teacher there to relieve teaching burden from the professor. There will be different task and time expectations and the inequity of these across the curriculum can be significant. As graduate students, it's important to know what the expectations are when you agree to take on a new class.

But more importantly, departments need to ensure that there are cultural norms for these expectations. Is it expected that TAs should work their full time allotment every week? If not, what is a reasonable load? After all, the grad students are there to get their degree, not bear the burden of your teaching load.

EDIT: I forgot an important point that I was reminded of on Twitter: TA's are paid for at the university level by overhead dollars. Thus they are paid for by research to support the research mission.

13 responses so far

Older posts »