Archive for the '[Biology&Environment]' category

NSF funding: myth, hyperbole and luck

May 04 2017 Published by under [Biology&Environment]

Preproposal news is starting to leak out of the BIO directorate, and with it a renewed sense of anguish among those who were not invited to submit a full proposal. In particular, the invite rates were painfully low this year, coming in around 22%. Considering that only 25-30% of THOSE will ever see funding, it appears that success rates in the NSF core programs continues to decline.

This is bad. Worse than we've seen in this generation.

Naturally people see these numbers and turn on the process, calling it random and a lottery, then focusing on the expertise of reviewers as a problem.

I get it, I really do. But before we decide to tear down the machine, let me make two points:

1) There is a certain amount of randomness to this process, but it is not as great a negative force as people seem to like to believe. Everyone who has been doing this long enough has a story about a proposal that did well once or twice and then never crossed the line. Everyone. Of course, if you have survived long enough to tell that story, you probably have a story about a proposal that got denied a couple of times, but through your will and brilliance managed to break down the doors to funding!

If you have served on enough panels, you may or may not recognize these as two sides to the same coin. The only difference is on one hand we were screwed by variance in the system and on the other we won by grit and determination. Both these narratives fit nicely in our comfort zone, while ignoring the reality of the enterprise. For every proposal you managed to "get through despite the odds", some other PI "got screwed by the system". And thus the mythology of funding goes....

2) Funding is no lottery. That is not to say there is no luck involved (there is), but a lottery treats every entry the same. I can assure you, having reviewed well over 100 proposals to two different panels, all proposals are NOT the same. At least half are not even in the running for funding. At the preproposal stage IOS has taken to triaging probably about 1/4 right off the bat, and another 1/4 might as well be. In that upper half though, things get more interesting.

To make the jump from upper 50% to invited for full proposal, you really need to hit all the right marks and have people on panel who you get excited over your ideas. Easier said than done, I know. Once you get into the full proposal stage, well, now is when separating signal from noise gets pretty tough at 6% funding rates. I would argue that probably 70-80% of the science that makes it this far is fundable and would produce quality publications. We even have data on funded projects that demonstrates that reviewers can not predict the success of the project and it's hardly a stretch to say that our ability to draw a line between what should and should not get money at that level is suspect.

And here's where we identify the real problem.

All of the issues people identify in the system are symptoms of there just not being near enough money to fund all the good science. Of course there is luck involved when so many proposals that make the initial cut are worthy of support! The variance we see is mainly because of the constraints we are operating under and not a fault of the system, per se. If the 22% invite rate was the funding rate, none of this becomes a problem. But when you need to fit 100 hippos in a Chevy Nova, shit breaks down.

We need to stop complaining about the process and continue to apply pressure in the only place that will fix any of this. Without additional funds, this continual flatlining of the NSF budget will continue to make consistent funding a pipe dream.

4 responses so far

Pretty and part of the problem

Humans tend to be very visual creatures. We like to be able to see things and are often uncomfortable thinking in the abstract. When confronted with new things, we lean on our experience to interpret new data and decide whether we trust it.

When it comes to the living world around us, diversity is often in the eye of the beholder. Ask anyone on the street to name 10 different organisms and most would probably rattle off a list of mammals. Maybe a couple land plants. But I would bet my life savings* that 99.9% of the responses would be macroscopic organisms and the 0.1% would be someone thinking how much anti-bacterial stuff we use and perhaps put that link together.

And that's how diagrams like this get made (Click to enlargify):


It's a pretty image made by Leonard Eisenberg that was highlighted in a Business Insider article this week, entitled "This awesome graphic of all lifeforms will make you feel tiny". I get the point, which is to emphasize what a small niche we humans exist in over the scale of life. But the absurdly massive emphasis on animals does a disservice to the very intention of the graphic.

I'm not even going to get into the issues of how extinct lineages were drawn or decided in cases outside the animals, I assume there's some "artistic license" in that part. However, what's lost in that unlabeled section where the "Eukaryotes" label was slapped in, dwarfs everything to the right of it. Check out the Tara project data that just came out in Science (summary here, data paper here, all paywalled because Science) where they estimate ~150,000 planktonic species. And that's *just* the ocean. The vast majority of those don't even show up on diagrams like the one above, because we popular science largely ignores their existence, thus the public remains unaware.

It's unfortunate, because the effects of microbial eukaryotes on human health (e.g. malaria), food (e.g. oomycetes and fungal pathogens) and environment (e.g. harmful algal blooms) are enormous.

*Hahahaha, I know, we're not talking high stakes betting here.

4 responses so far

The ever changing dynamics of biodiversity

May 29 2014 Published by under [Biology&Environment]

Biodiversity is a hot topic these days. By any measure (species counts, genetic diversity, etc.) we appear to be losing it at rates that are uncharacteristic for our current climatic conditions. That is to say, there have been other major extinction events in Earth's history, but our current predicament is not the result of asteroid impact, and ice age or massive volcanic eruptions. Rather, evolution has produced an animal capable of exploiting planetary resources on an unprecedented scale.

But I'm not interested in getting into a climate change discussion today. I don't suffer the deniers of anthropogenic change on a global scale. What I would like to address stems from a conversation this morning that has long been an issue for me. It started simply:

I remarked that lion fish are hardly unusual for classic invasive species that enters a new ecosystem and takes off as food items are plentiful and parasites and predators are not. There's hundreds of examples of this exact pattern playing out, even if most people will only be familiar with ones involving larger animals. But the discussion got a bit more complex and it is here that I have been thinking a lot recently:

Our planet is a complex and very dynamic place. It's a question of scale and most people focus on a scale that they can relate to. When we talk about the disappearance of species, 99% of time we're talking about things that were present within our lifetimes and are either highly restricted in their distribution now, or gone. It's a time frame we can wrap our heads around.

But the planet is more dynamic than that and sea level change, land mass movement and global temperature have fluctuated dramatically over time. We are so hyper-focused on preserving the current status quo or re-establishing the very recent past that it is easy to ignore the fact that biological invasions are the norm at a geological scale, not the exception. I'm not advocating for ignoring human-induced biologic invasions or the short-term havoc they cause on an ecosystem but it's important to keep them in context. We've made the situation worse, but "invasives" are not new. Not even close.

As an example that concerns me, we are rapidly approaching a time when there will be unobstructed ocean flow through the Arctic for much or all of the year. The lack of ice cover for longer periods significantly alters what can live in Arctic waters and current patterns are likely to move Pacific species east*. This is not a situation where we have a single species showing up and bullying a naive ecosystem, but the collision of two ecosystems that have been physically separated for a long time. It'll be the rough equivalent of submerging the isthmus of Panama (no, not the panama canal, which flows through fresh water).

Again, both of these dramatic events have happened before over geologic time. But in stark contrast to worrying about the fate of a single species or the preservation of a particular forest or reef, which is where much of our current conservation effort is focused, we will stand witness to forces far more dramatic. Unlike the lion fish eradication effort in the topical Atlantic, there will be no hope to put this genie back in the bottle**. But as noted here, we still think of conservation as stopping the changing of the tide:

Now I realize this is a fairly rambly post written in multiple interrupted sittings, so I want to make clear I'm not against studying invasive species or using invasions as a model for projecting ecological impacts and niche shuffling. But I do think we need to view species mobility and biodiversity as a dynamic processes, albeit one that is being driven mightily both directly and indirectly by human activities. In fact, I think such research is going to be key to figure out how we mitigate some of the damage. But what we view as an "ideal state" for biodiversity may not be the stable state for the environment in the future, no matter how much we try and force it to be.

*Anecdotally, there are already some disturbing reports here.

**Okay, there's no hope to eradicate the lion fish from the Caribbean either, but this is a different level of crushed hope.

7 responses so far

What the effome?

NSF BIO Sent around an email today that had many recipients asking "WTF?" Apparently there is a new initiative being put together that is aiming to look at the connection between genomes and the observable traits of organisms. Cool, I'm down with that. But, um, what are we calling this?

BIO seeks community input on Genomes-Phenomes research frontiers

John Wingfield, Assistant Director of the National Science Foundation Directorate for Biological Sciences (BIO), is pleased to announce the posting of a Wiki to seek community input on the grand challenge of understanding the complex relationship between genomes and phenomes. The Wiki is intended to facilitate discussion among researchers in diverse disciplines that intersect with biology, such as computation, mathematics, engineering, physics, and chemistry.

The Wiki format encourages open communication, captures new viewpoints, and promotes free exchange of ideas about the bottlenecks that impede progress on the genomes-phenomes grand challenge and approaches or strategies to overcome these challenges. Information provided through the Wiki will help inform BIO's future research investments and activities relevant to understanding genomes-phenomes relationships.

To provide comments, ask questions and view input from and interact with other community members, first-time users should sign up for an account via this link: Sign-up. Once registered, users will be directed to the main page of the NSF Wiki to accept the terms and conditions before proceeding. Additional guidance and subsequent visits can be accessed via this link: Genomes-Phenomes Wiki.

Community members should feel free to forward notice of this to anyone they think might be interested in contributing to the discussion. Questions regarding the Wiki should be sent to

"Phenomes", eh? Jonathan Eisen has already pointed out that this is just another example of Bad Omics, and there were plenty on twitter who were busting out the side-eye on this one.

But what is the point of making up terms that are hard to define and don't convey any information? Would it really have been less "paradigm shifting" to make the program about connecting the genome and phenotypic variation? People would have actually understood what that meant, so there's that....

I'm excited to see this being considered and I think there's a huge amount of potential here, but let's use real words when trying to communicate ideas, m'kay?

2 responses so far

Engaging in creationism vs. evolution debates is anti-science

When I was a weer lad starting down the road of science, I used to think that any opportunity to engage creationists in debate was a Good Thing. We should take the education to them and show them how wrong they are! I was gung-ho and ready to pull back the curtain of ignorance on religion.

But then I watched some of these circus acts and realized very quickly that there is nothing to be gained here and everything to be lost.

I was unaware that there was a televised creationism debate on last night until my Twitter timeline was rapidly filled with scientists pointing out logic flaws in the creationist's arguments. My response: creationism STARTS with the suspension of reality. It does no good to treat it as anything more than a fairy tail.

The problem is that it is not a debate. A debate is an argument of two valid sides. It's the use of facts to make your option sound more appealing than the other person's. But the entire exercise is futile when one side has facts and the other side has only unsubstantiated belief. It's not even that creationists are bringing a knife to a gun fight, it's that they're showing up empty handed imagining they have a nuclear bomb.

These "debates" aren't constructive, helpful or useful to spread facts. Instead, they play right into the hands of creationists by lending false credibility to the very idea that the two sides are on equal footing. Do doctors conduct open public debates with faith healers? Do physicists debate astrologers or magicians? Do geologists debate flat-Earthers? Of course not! We don't give that kind of lunacy the public stage that we do creationism, but the absurdity of such "debates" is no different.

The FACT is that we can observe evolution in real time. Antibiotic, herbicide and insecticide resistance? How about the annual global migration of the flu? The very reason why vaccine development for diseases like AIDS and malaria has not been effective? All of these are examples of evolutionary forces we can observe, record and demonstrate. It's repeatable and crystal clear what is going on. It's not debatable. Either you are willing to look at the data or have decided you refuse to accept reality. There is no middle ground. The very act of engaging in these spectacles legitimizes the lunatic fringe and is anti-science.

So what do we do? Yes, creationism has gained a lot of steam in certain parts of the US and it's not just "the ignorant masses". Doctors, lawyers and politicians count among those who have chosen to ignore observable data for belief. But the thing is, you're not going to argue those people into submission. You're not not going to have a break through with 99.9% of adults who Believe. You can spend all of your professional time trying to shine the light of science into every dark corner and you will never reach every nook and cranny.

Instead we need to concentrate on the schools and youth. Educate the kids. This is the exact tactic creationists have been using for decades now, resulting in the level of acceptance you see today. How was big tobacco crippled? Not by going after the life long smokers, but by making it "uncool" to the youth. You'll never get them all, but educating kids is the best tool we have to less ignorant future.

In addition, I think it's critical to engage religious people who are not literalists. There are millions of religious people who do not take every word of the bible as fact and who are willing to accept science, and specifically, evolution. Thousands of scientists, including the current director of NIH, consider themselves people of faith. Science and religion are NOT incompatible and it will require the engagement of religious and agnostic alike, to ensure we educate the future leaders of our country.

22 responses so far

The education / effort trade-off

So last night's #pubscience discussion was focused on decisions about undergraduate education. Specifically, how our panelists saw the pros and cons of undergraduate education at different types of universities and colleges. These are questions I face regularly at University open houses and in one-on-one conversations with families considering sending their child to the place of my employment.

"What can you offer that comparable universities can't?", "What will my student's job prospects be when they graduate?", "What types of student support are there here?"

Parents and students, alike, are trying to measure their chances of success at a particular place, and importantly, the value of an education there. Price point is increasingly becoming one of the most important criteria when students are selecting a school, IME.

Okay, but what does that mean for me as a professor? Whereas I don't teach as much as some of my colleagues at other institutions (and I teach more than others), I see my share of undergraduate faces every year. As a pretenure prof, balancing the amount of effort I put into teaching is important.

Why? Because teaching won't get you tenure. At least not here. I'm not saying that's right or just or The Way It Should Be, only that it is reality. Without significant* research output, the odds of one passing into the ranks of the tenured are dramatically lessened. This leads us to the great pretenure balancing act - do the best job at teaching that you can without taking too much away from your research effort.

As a specific example, let's take labs. I teach a class that has a lab. The class meets twice a week (1.25hrs ea) and the lab meets twice a week (3hrs ea), but the class is split so that each student only goes to one lab per week. Therefore, I have to prepare roughly 2.5 hrs of material for class per week and 3 hrs for lab. I teach all the class periods unless I am traveling or there is a daycare crisis, but I have a graduate student TA to teach the lab. We meet weekly and I have designed the labs to fit the class, but I am not there to teach the material and go over concepts.

From an undergraduate perspective, this is probably less than ideal. Unless the TA is excellent it would probably be better to have the person who designed the lab exercise and who is teaching the classroom portion to be instructing the lab as well. There's more opportunities to reiterate concepts from class and chances to push students on the core concepts when you have a single person handling all aspects of the course. I know I benefited from this as an undergraduate and I'm sure the students in my class would too.


There's only so many hours in a day and I have been asked to focus more on other parts of my job than on teaching the lab portions of classes. Reinforcing this is the fact the my college pays a graduate student to alleviate me from those duties. I know it would be a better educational experience if I was in the course lab, but my interests and motivation are elsewhere. And so we knowingly sacrifice on the quality of undergraduate education in the name of research and graduate student training (teaching experience).

It's a trade off, and like any compromise, no one is 100% happy with it. But it's the reality of a university that holds it's professors to a research-centric advancement metric.

But before you think I'm leaving you on an anti-bigU down note, one of the most critical points of last night's discussion was that every one of the panelists who went on to careers in science did so because they got into a lab and did actual science. It wasn't their classes that inspired them to head to grad school, it was getting their hands dirty in a research lab. So, while the majority of my students would be better off if I were in the course lab, the 5-7 undergraduates who work in my research lab per year have been afforded an opportunity they would not get if research wasn't thriving here. For those students who end up in science careers, their time in the lab was like a deciding factor.

*"Significant" is purposefully vague to allow for waffle room. Not Waffle House. Mmmm, train wreck omelet....

15 responses so far

Should we stop training PhDs in certain sub-fields?

There's been a lot of discussion in the last few months about the number of PhDs we produce. You may recall JHU trying to get out in front of the issue, but it's still a hot button topic:

The question of reducing the number of PhDs produced is a complex one and there's simply no chance that the overall numbers will be reduced evenly across the board. It seems inevitable that certain fields are going to dry up and blow away and I think this has direct bearing on how we consider training students.

In my own lab we do several things that can more or less be divided into two camps, one of which is more "classical" and the other more cutting edge. Importantly, I have NSF funding for both, so each can be considered a viable enterprise from a funding perspective. However, there is a wild skew in the job prospects for students with training in one vs. the other.

This leads to a significant dilemma. Obviously I feel that both types of work are important and both contribute significantly, but there are just no jobs to do the classical work. And I don't just mean no academic jobs. I mean that training in this particular field leaves you few options outside of an academic job, of which there are none. There is funding out there for this type of work, but it is not accessible if one can not find a faculty job to exploit it.

We've been trending this way for more than a decade. I see it from the labs I know training people in this field. I see it in our regional conference that is bimodally skewed to the old and the students. I see it in the job ads that circulate. Unless you have other significant skills or are willing to leave the counrty, it is excrutiatingly difficult get a job (academic or otherwise) utilizing a PhD in this classical field.

In stark contrast, everyone who spent most of their time in the other side of my lab has left and found desirable (to them) employment. They have skills that are more broadly transferable and that a wider range of potential employers are interested in. Therefore, I am left to wonder whether it is even ethical for me to accept PhD students into my lab to work on the classical stuff, or is it simple labor exploitation. Ironically, I get more applicants interested in this than the cutting edge stuff we do.

Is it time for me to back-burner the classical stuff? Do I need to begin to rethink all of these projects to bring in new techniques that might alleviate this issue (some are emerging, but they are not yet ready for prime time)? Should I be the one deciding or should the student applicant pool decide?

14 responses so far

Solar powered sea slugs: Is it all in the plastid?

Dec 19 2013 Published by under [Biology&Environment]

Anyone who has followed this blog over the years knows that I have a bit of a thing for photosynthetic sea slugs. It's a complex story that has been worked on by several labs over a few years, and it is still not clear exactly what is going on. In short, there is a group of sea slugs that have the ability to feed on algae, and rather than digest their plastids (chloroplasts), the slugs store them in a reticulated intestine. Once full, the slugs stop feeding and apparently use the photosynthate produced by the plastids for several months. The catch, and why this is so interesting, is that plastids require proteins that are incoded in the nucleus of the alga. The sea slug digests the nucleus. So how does it work?

In 2008 evidence was published suggesting the slug had acquired nuclear genes from the alga. In 2010 I blogged about a study that countered this claim. In 2011 the story took a twist and it looked like the gene transfer story was an artefact. In 2012 the pendulum swung back and more data came out suggesting that ~60 algal genes reside in the sea slug nucleus.

What to make of all this? de Vries et al. have a different take and the secret may have been in the plastid all along.

The biggest hurdle that orphaned plastids have to deal with is degradation of the D1 protein of photosystem II. Most plastids we are familiar with require proteins that are encoded in the nucleus to be shuttled to the plastid in order to maintain the D1 protein. The plastids sequestered by sea slugs are divorced from their nucleus and the proteins it encodes. Therefore, they either have to be self-reliant to repair their photosystems or must rely on the host sea slug.

de Vries et al. suggest that the robust gene complement of plastids taken up by the sea slugs is directly responsible for their retention. Specifically, they site ftsH as instrumental in repairing the D1 protein of PSII. In many photosynthetic organisms, this protein is nuclear-encoded, but it remains in the plastids of the sea slugs' preference. In the absence of a nuclear contribution from the sea slug, the plastid may be able to repair itself for the lifespan of captivity in the slug.

Certainly this story is not over. This most recent paper even cites an "in press" manuscript that appears to demonstrate that the plastids are maintained in the slug for months in the dark, raising additional questions about how the slugs are utilizing the plastids. There have also been complications in the story based on different labs using different species of slugs (and their preferred algal food source) to ask the same questions. However, as this story continues to evolve the complex association between the slugs and the plastids they steal is slowly coming into focus.


Rumpho ME, Worful JM, Lee J, Kannan K, Tyler MS, Bhattacharya D, Moustafa A, & Manhart JR (2008). Horizontal gene transfer of the algal nuclear gene psbO to the photosynthetic sea slug Elysia chlorotica. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 105 (46), 17867-71 PMID: 19004808

Wagele, H., Deusch, O., Handeler, K., Martin, R., Schmitt, V., Christa, G., Pinzger, B., Gould, S., Dagan, T., Klussmann-Kolb, A., & Martin, W. (2010). Transcriptomic evidence that longevity of acquired plastids in the photosynthetic slugs Elysia timida and Plakobrachus ocellatus does not entail lateral transfer of algal nuclear genes Molecular Biology and Evolution DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msq239

Pelletreau KN, Bhattacharya D, Price DC, Worful JM, Moustafa A, & Rumpho ME (2011). Sea slug kleptoplasty and plastid maintenance in a metazoan. Plant physiology, 155 (4), 1561-5 PMID: 21346171

Rumpho ME, Pelletreau KN, Moustafa A, & Bhattacharya D (2011). The making of a photosynthetic animal. The Journal of experimental biology, 214 (Pt 2), 303-11 PMID: 21177950

Pierce, S., Fang, X., Schwartz, J., Jiang, X., Zhao, W., Curtis, N., Kocot, K., Yang, B., & Wang, J. (2012). Transcriptomic evidence for the expression of horizontally transferred algal nuclear genes in the photosynthetic sea slug, Elysia chlorotica. Molecular Biology and Evolution DOI: 10.1093/molbev/msr316

de Vries J, Habicht J, Woehle C, Changjie H, Christa G, Wägele H, Nickelsen J, Martin WF, & Gould SB (2013). Is ftsH the key to plastid longevity in sacoglossan slugs? Genome biology and evolution PMID: 24336424

No responses yet

Want to know more about zombie ants? Help fund some research!

Parasites are ubiquitous among eukaryotes, with some estimates suggesting that for every animal species there are at least 100 parasites and that parasites outnumber free-living species 4 to 1. For a variety of reasons, getting true estimates of parasite numbers is virtually impossible, but there is no doubt that they play a major ecological and evolutionary role. With all this competition among parasites for suitable hosts, it should not be surprising that some have gotten particularly creative in finding ways to disperse.

Image source

If you haven't heard of the fungal parasite that takes over the brains of insects, it's an amazing story. It's an amazing system that David Hughes has been working on at Penn State since staring his position there in 2011. There's certainly been no shortage of interest in the system, but the lab is looking to transition from understanding the ecology of this relationship to examining the cellular scale.

That's where postdoc Charissa de Bekker, comes in. Charissa is in the process of understanding what's going on in the heads of those ants. Literally. Using the recently published genome of the caterpillar Ophiocordyceps parasite and draft genomes of the parasite species in the ants as a backdrop, she will use the expressed genes (transcriptome) and metabolites of the parasite during infection to reveal the mechanisms for ant mind control.

Charrisa has launched a crowdfunding campaign to get this work rolling and produce the preliminary data needed to write a fundable proposal. As of now, the project has 18 days remaining and is only just over 20% of it's goal of $5,306. Beyond the fact that this is a very cool project that will produce some enticing data, you will be supporting the work of a new lab getting established in a growing field. Plus, the more we know about zombies the better prepared we will be for the Zombie Apocalypse*.

So head on over an donate to this project.

*This research is a better use of your money than stock piling food and ammo.

No responses yet

Guest Post: Five Reasons Why You Liked My Post

Following up on her post "The Worst Part Is Not", guest contributor Hope Jahren has asked me to post the following:

1. It Was Well-Written. Lordy lordy how well-written it was. Let’s all turn toward the East and say it together, loud enough to shake the walls where a certain book proposal is languishing on a certain desk. “HOPE JAHREN SURE CAN WRITE,” we bellow while choking back our collective sob. Someone should give that girl a goddam book deal.

2. It Didn’t Name Names. First Ofuck or Ofek or whoever-the-f*ck hate-spoke Danielle Lee and we were all like, String him up! How daaaaaare you! And the guys were all like, Let me at him! Then Borat or Boraz or Borehole sleazed up Monica Byrne and we were all like, Not Mr. Rogers! He’s a flesh-and-blood dude! He gave me peelings for my compost heap! He defragged my harddrive! Why universe, why? And the guys went kinda silent at that point (did you notice?). Then we looked at each other and said, Whoa this is complicated. Eventually we got to this place where we sure as hell don’t want him making decisions about women’s careers but we’d still probably perform CPR on him if we saw him lying in the street. Turns out he’s neither an angel nor a devil, just like all the other men I don’t know. Just like every sorry soul made flesh temporarily wandering this lonely dusty Earth.

3. You Needed to Read It. When we all started wringing our hands about What will happen to Dear Old Borat(^1) and Can the community afford to lose such a prophet as he and Will they repo his flatscreen, I started thinking “Why should we care more about Borat’s(^1) career than he apparently does?” Then it dawned on me that this is really about me. If you knew me better, you’d realize that most things are about me. It’s why I have so many friends and was elected Homecoming Queen for two consecutive terms in high school. I got all morose and guys-are-pigs and cancelled my subscription to Scientific American(^2). I began to dwell on how my whole life has been spent bandaging and rebandaging my sores from this kind of shit. Hell, I was sent out of the room in Kindergarten for already knowing how to read.(^3) Then I looked around and realized that, at that very moment, I was eating a papaya under a freaking rainbow. That changing the world is not supposed to be easy. That my life contains successes that my grandmother couldn’t even have dreamed of. That I am strong, and good inside(^4), and that maybe I can do something about this. Here we’ve got a guy who’s a dickhead who doesn’t even know he’s a dickhead cruising through life leaving a trail of crushed dreams and cold untouched lattés behind him. How many guys would quit doing that shit if they realized that it adds up to something really super hurtful? How many agents would clamor for my manuscript if they read a heartbreaking(^5) post on the subject? Then I took pen in hand.

4. I’m Not Going To Name Names. You probably got that vibe from my post. It’s not that I’m afraid, and it’s not that it’s not true (you got the G-rated version, dear reader). It’s that, well, apparently there’s more than a few people out there who think it’s about them. I get a HUGE KICK out of this.(^6) Send me some email and call me a c*nt. I won’t out you. Or maybe I will. I’ve got this thing next to my computer called a printer. Young folks nowadays tell me I can do this thing called a “shot-screen” or something. Ain’t technology grand?

5. The Real Message of the Piece is Still Working On Your Subconscious. We all read it. We laughed. We cried. We lived. We learned. That’s all good. But please don’t miss the point of the whole thing. Yes there’s sexual harassment in Science, and it’s sustained and it’s pernicious and it’s damaging. It didn’t drive me out of Science because sexual harassment is everywhere(^7). As if there’s some safe place you can flee to and be safe from it. I don’t mean to go all Second Wave on you(^8) but sexual harassment in Academia is symptomatic of the larger-scale dysfunctionalities between the sexes in our culture, and any address of them must be grounded in the fundamental tenets of women’s liberation. BUT (and this is a big, all-caps BUT) you can do something about this today. This “fundamental tenet” I keep gibbering on about is that Women Have Worth. You know that woman you work with or have in class who’s so smart she scares you? Who’s so good at what she does, she must already know it? The odds are that nobody has ever told her this. So why don’t you go do it? The endless stream of harassment and sexism is not what has stayed with me. It is the encouragement I got from people who didn’t have to encourage me, who could have said nothing. This is what I cling to during dark days. This is why I know I am not a c*nt for speaking out. The various monologues of inappropriate comments all ran together long ago like some tacky watercolor landscape. What I remember clearly were the people who stopped what they were doing to tell me I was special, and that they saw something important developing in me. This is what fortifies me. YOU have the power to fortify someone. Today. “You have done well, and you are good inside, and you will change the world.” I wrote you the f*cking script. What more do you want from me?

^1 Or Boraz or whoever-the-f*ck.
^2 I did indeed.
^3 Not that I’m bitter or anything.
^4 Somebody told me that once, and it stuck with me. More on that later.
^5 Your words, not mine.
^6 Remember the original disclaimer about me not being Mother Theresa?
^7 and because my Calvinist upbringing convinced me that I was predestined to be an important scientist with a beautiful lab full of magnificent beeping machines. Come see it sometime, it’ll knock your socks off.
^8 Or maybe I do.

Hope Jahren is a Full and tenured Professor at the University of Hawaii. She is on Twitter @HopeJahren. Her research page is here: Her lab Twitter is @JahrenLab. She told her students she would take them to a fancy dinner on Waikiki if they got 1,000 followers.

One response so far

Older posts »